(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hearing"

s/s 




San Francisco Public Library 

?nt lnforrr^ation Center 
Sai library 

100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
8ar I r 94102 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 




^HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS OEPT. 

JUL 8 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 



PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1994 
2:17 P.M. 



256-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1994 
2:17 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 






3 1223 03273 6671 



11 



A PPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

E. JACKSON GOING, Member 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 

SENATOR ALFRED ALQUIST 

RUTH GRAVANIS, Director 
Restoring the Bay Campaign 

BRUCE LIVINGSTON, California Director 
Clean Water Action 

SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 

SENATOR TOM CAMPBELL 

BILL CAMERON 

Sacramento Chapter 

United Anglers of California 

ARTHUR FEINSTEIN, Program Coordinator 
Golden Gate Audubon Society 

MIKE PAPARIAN 
Sierra Club 



4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 11 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued) 

DAVID NESMITH 

San Francisco Bay Chapter 

Sierra Club 

CAROLE D' ALES 10 

Marin Conservation League 

LESLEE HAMILTON 

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition 

JANE MILLS 

Marin County Audubon Society 

LINDSAY REHM 

Environmental Forum of Marin County 

MARY RAFTERY 

California Public Interest Research Group 

DENNY LARSON, Campaign Director 
Citizens for a Better Environment 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

E. JACKSON GOING, Member 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 1 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR AL ALQUIST .... 1 

Background and Experience 2 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

RUTH GRAVANIS, Director 

Restoring the Bay Campaign 3 

BRUCE LIVINGSTON, California Director 

Clean Water Action 6 

Questions to Nominee by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Economic Value of Wetlands 8 

Questions to Nominee by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Definition of "Wetlands" 9 

Who Makes Determination of Wetlands 10 

Statements by SENATOR ALQUIST 10 

Discussion 11 

Resumption of Witness's Testimony 12 

Questions to Nominee by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Cleaning Up of State Superfund Sites and 

Cortese Requirements 13 

Questions to Witness by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Name of Organization 14 

Relevancy of Wetlands to Organization 14 

Need to Develop New Water Sources 14 



INDEX (Continued) 

Resumption of Witness's Testimony 15 

Questions to Nominee by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Potential Conflict of Interest with the 

Federal 10% and 50% Rules 16 

Witnesses in Support: 

SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 18 

SENATOR TOM CAMPBELL 19 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Knowledge of Nominee's Expertise on 

Water Quality Issues 19 

Response by MR. GOING 2 

Survey of San Francisco Bay while a Student 

at Santa Clara University 20 

Professional Consulting Jobs related to 

Water 2 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

BILL CAMERON 

Sacramento Chapter 

United Anglers of California 21 

Questions of Witness by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Nominee's Possible Negative Actions 

regarding Fishing 21 

Items Needed for Organization's Support 2 2 

ARTHUR FEINSTEIN, Program Coordinator 

Golden Gate Audubon Society 2 4 

Questions of Witness by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Denial of Opinion 25 

Resumption of Testimony by Witness 25 

Questions of Witness by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Inherent Knowledge of Trained Professional 

vs. Information Gleaned from Staff 26 



VI 



INDEX t Continued) 

Resumption of Witness's Testimony 26 

Questions to Nominee by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

"Technicality" at Issue in Mayhews Landing 

Issue 30 

Specific Technicality Being Addressed 31 

Subsequent Reversal of Approval by 

State Board 31 

Questions to Nominee by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Duties of Regional Boards 32 

MICHAEL PAPARIAN 

Sierra Club 3 3 

DAVID NESMITH 

San Francisco Bay Chapter 

Sierra Club 34 

Questions of Witness by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Other Votes by Nominee that Sierra Club 

Considers Negative 36 

Vote on Mayhew Landing Case 37 

First Reversal of a Regional Board by 

State Board 37 

CAROLE D' ALES 10 

Marin Conservation League 37 

LESLEE HAMILTON 

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition 37 

Questions of Witness by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Labor Organizations Represented on 

Coalition 38 

JANE MILLS 

Marin County Audubon Society 38 

LINDSAY REHM 

Environmental Forum of Marin County 39 

MARY RAFTERY 

California Public Interest Research Group 39 



Vll 



INDEX (Continued) 

DENNY LARSON, Campaign Director 

Citizens for a Better Environment 40 

Questions to Witness by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Perceived Imbalance on Board 42 

Board's Inaction on Copper and Selenium 

Predate Nominee's Service on Board . 4 3 

Questions to Witness by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Qualifications of Other Board Members 44 

Board as Advocates 44 

Witness's Willingness to Serve on Board 4 5 

Questions to Witness by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Type of Experience or Education Necessary 

to Appropriately Fill Water Quality Seat 4 6 

Questions to Nominee by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Specific Experience in Relevant Areas 46 

Rebuttal by Nominee 4 8 

Request by SENATOR PETRIS to Put Over Confirmation 

so Committee Can Check Nominee's Voting Record 

during Tenure on Board 4 9 

Committee Action to Put Over Confirmation 50 

Termination of Proceedings 50 

Certificate of Reporter 51 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: With respect to gubernatorial 
appointments, the Governor's Office has indicated that they'd 
like more time to consider legal opinions with respect to 
Mr. Burke, but we have Jack Going here. 

Mr. Going, do you want to come up. 

Senator Alquist, did you want to make an 
introduction? 

[Thereupon the Senate Rules 
Committee acted upon legislative 
agenda items . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Going is next. 

SENATOR ALQUIST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
Members . 

Mr. Going has been a friend and supporter of mine for 
some, well, 32 years I've been in office. I've known him some 
years before that when he was a partner in one of the most 
outstanding engineering firms in Santa Clara County. He is also 
one of the most respected people in Santa Clara County. He's 
been involved in almost every community action in the City of 
Santa Clara, especially, which is his home as it is mine. 

The press conference by the Sierra Club and the 
Planning and Conservation League I thought was outrageous in its 
distortion of Mr. Going's ability and his integrity and his 
general reputation. 

I would recommend him for confirmation to this 
position in the highest possible terms, and I hope that you will 



seriously consider what I have said. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator Alquist. 

SENATOR ALQUIST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Going, did you want to start 
with any initial statement about why you're qualified for this 
particular job? 

MR. GOING: Well, thank you, Senator Lockyer, Mr. 
Chair, and Senators and staff members. 

All I wish to actually say is that I have practiced 
civil engineering in a firm that I founded in 1949, left in 
1983, which was the practice of architecture, engineering, 
planning, and surveying. I wbrked considerably in utility 
areas, development of properties. However, all along, I've been 
very interested in the concerns with our environment. 

I left my firm and have been involved with Santa 
Clara University, in re-routing a state highway around the 
campus and the closing of seven streets to improve the campus. 
And I do serve on two of the stream task forces, the San Tomas 
and Saratoga, in our community for the protection of wildlife, 
and the habitat, and the protection and improvement of those 
creek rights of way which have a length of about 26 miles. 

On my — I've served some ten years on the Santa 
Clara County Transportation Commission. And one of my prime 
objectives has been to work out, through our Measure A program 
in Santa Clara County, the banking of wetlands, and I'm very 
committed to seeing that this continues. It has -- we do bank 
wetlands in Santa Clara County, and we are very much requiring 
in our deliberations the multiple replacement where any are 



used, or crossed, or damaged, or replaced in any way. 

I want to assure you of my interest in the position 
to which I've been appointed, that I will judge every issue 
fairly. And certainly in looking to -- the position I hold in 
clean water is something that I have worked on for most of my 
professional life and will continue to do so. 

I'm sure there's some, I understand, some people that 
do object to my appointment, and I would be happy to defer to 
them at this time and respond later on, if that's deemed 
appropriate . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

Are there questions from Members, or would you like 
to hear additional testimony? 

Is there anyone that would wish to comment either in 
support? First, let me ask if there are any supporters present, 
other than, of course, Senator Alquist, who's commented, who 
would wish to make a comment at this time? 

If not, ask if there are opponents or those that 
would wish to express concerns that may wish to comment also? 

MS. GRAVANIS: Good afternoon, Chairman Lockyer and 
Members of the Committee. My name is Ruth Gravanis, and I'm the 
Director of the Restoring the Bay Campaign. That's a special 
project of Save San Francisco Bay Association. It brings 
together 35 organizations interested in the San Francisco Bay 
Delta estuary for better communication and going action on 
issues of mutual concern. 

We are here today to talk about the confirmation of 
the appointment of Mr. Going. There are a number of other 



people here today. There are also quite a few people who wanted 
to come but who didn't come because of the last-minute change in 
the agenda, and who felt they simply couldn't afford to leave 
work and other obligations to come from the Bay region to 
Sacramento twice. So, not everyone that we've been working with 
is represented in person here today, but I would like, if it's 
appropriate, to pass out an updated list of organizations and 
individuals which share the concerns that we ' re going to be 
raising today. I have another list as well. 

One of the groups that was not able to be here 
represented specifically is Save San Francisco Bay Association. 
And what I would like to do is to call your attention to an 
article in the recent issue of The Bay Watcher , which is their 
quarterly publication. The article is entitled, "Is the Fox 
Guarding the Henhouse?", and it discusses a fairly recent 
decision made by the Regional Water Quality Control Board 
regarding the Mayhews Landing case. This is a situation where 
there was a proposal to develop housing on wetlands, and where 
the Regional Board, ignoring the knowledge and recommendation of 
its own staff, made a misinterpretation of the applicability of 
CEQA to this particular case, had to be overturned by the State 
Water Board. 

We feel that we really are looking for appointees to 
this committee who will show more knowledge of the applicable 
laws, and when appropriate, will listen to the expertise of the 
Regional Board staff. 

The article also points out that Mr. Going did not 
show the kind of respect for public participation, for 



participatory democracy, which we see called for in the Porter- 
Cologne Act. 

The major point that I wanted to call your attention 
today to, though, is the question of Mr. Going's qualification 
for the particular seat which he occupies on the Regional Board. 
As you know, the Porter-Cologne Act says that this seat should 
go to someone with a special competence in areas related to 
water quality problems. 

We would very much like to know what that particular 
special competence is, and how it was acquired, and how it has 
been brought to bear upon the deliberations and the decision 
making of the Regional Board. 

A number of us have been monitoring meetings of the 
Regional Board. We have not seen any evidence that Mr. Going 
has called into consideration issues of water quality problems, 
and how they come to bear on the particular permits being 
applied for, or renewed, or the enforcement actions, or whatever 
other item is on the agenda at that time. And we feel that it's 
extremely important to explore thoroughly this issue. 

We feel that because we need a balance on the Board, 
because the water quality seats are so extremely important that 
they should be filled by people who are going to constantly be 
upholding the need for improving our water quality. This is not 
what we have heard . 

Other speakers will give more detail on the questions 
1 ' ve raised. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 



Mr. Livingston is next. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Good afternoon, Senators. My name 
is Bruce Livingston. I'm the California Director of Clean Water 
Action. Clean Water Action is a national environmental lobby 
group with approximately one million members in 16 states. We 
have 40,000 members in the Bay Area. 

I have two major areas of concern here. We are -- I 
am speaking in opposition to the appointment of Mr. Going -- the 
confirmation of Mr. Going to the Water Board. 

Two major issues that I want to speak to: one as to 
his qualifications; the second is, I would like to flag the 
issue of conflict of interest, whether it's resolved or not 
today in his case. 

On the qualifications issue, a letter was addressed 
April 20th, 1994 to Mr. Going that addressed a number of issues 
regarding qualifications and conflict of interest. And I'm 
referring back to that somewhat without going into the details 
of it. 

We are concerned that being a civil engineer is not 
sufficient to be a water quality experienced voice on this 
Board. We feel that there needs to be a sense of advocacy for 
water quality, and also a background in terms of water quality 
as an economic benefit in terms of health and environmental 
economic benefits. 

May I address Mr. Going in terms of a few questions, 
or can I offer suggestions of what you might address to him? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is the first time I've been 
here for this, so I'm getting some direction. 



MS. MICHEL: Questions are usually addressed through 
the Chair so you don't end up with ongoing dialogue. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Thank you. I'm glad I asked. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Me, too. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: The two issues I want to concern are 
-- I have in terms of water quality are in terms of wetlands and 
in terms of site cleanup. 

The first question that I am concerned about that the 
Committee may wish to address is, that there are economic -- in 
fact economic values to preserving wetlands and to restoring 
wetlands. And I'm curious as to whether Mr. Going is aware of 
those economic values? He has expressed, specifically in the 
Mayhews Landing hearing last year, he expressed great concern 
for the economic value of development. 

The Campaign to Save California Wetlands, and Clean 
Water Action, and other groups, have released numerous reports 
over the last few years, emphasizing that wetlands are very, 
very important for fisheries in this state, and even more so -- 
and there's a speaker to the fisheries issue following me -- but 
even more so, there are economic values in terms of flood 
control, and purifying water in our aquifers, and as we reach 
large aquifers through wetlands, and in terms of purifying waste 
water to a greater degree. 

So, I am curious about his extent of knowledge about 
those issues of the economic value of wetlands. 

The second issue that I wish the Committee could 
address is the level of cleanup that is necessary in the State 
of California for remedial action sites for -- I think they're 



8 

normally referred to as the Cortese list, and commonly referred 
to as Superfund sites. And the Water Board often has a very 
strong role in those -- in that cleanup. 

Of course, environmentalists advocate 100 percent 
cleanup, and for that — for us, that means drinking water 
standards must be met after those cleanups. 

So, those are a couple of the issues. I want to know 
if this person can adequately address water quality issues, and 
then I'd like to just have a minute on conflict of interest 
questions . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess the practice here is to 
allow you to respond to both questions. 

First, the economic value of wetlands and your own 
thoughts about the subject? 

MR. GOING: My own personal opinion, and what I have 
practiced throughout my profession, is the protection of 
wetlands and increasing our wetlands. Also, the cleaning of our 
wetlands . 

And I would like to mention the Mayhews Landing, 
since the gentleman did bring it up. One of the reasons I felt, 
along with the cleaning of the environment with the new channel 
that was to be constructed which would have cleaned and purified 
those wetlands that are now polluted because of certain dumping 
that has occurred in the area where the development was 
proposed, that was not my main reason because there was a 
multiple replacement of wetlands and a conveyance of a large 
amount of wetlands. 

I feel wetlands ere one of the most important 



habitats for many of our, you know, birds, animals, insects, 
mice and all, and I'm very supportive of this. I believe that 
unless we protect those, the salinity will begin to back up into 
our clean drinking water, and I certainly am opposed to that, 
and I'm opposed to the cleaning of underground water in the 
protection of those wetlands [sic]. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: We hear the term "wetlands" all the 
time. Can you define that for me? What are wetlands? How are 
they identified? 

I'm asking a question on wetlands. 

MR. GOING: I can give you my answer. The 
definition, I don't believe, is a very clear definition. 

I feel that wetlands are any area that will support 
water, habitat, that is within a drainage area, whether they're 
wet or dry. There are wetlands that could be susceptible to 
water, to the holding of water, to the holding of any type of 
water to continue the need that we have in this community to 
support the habitat and to protect our underground drinking 
water from the intrusion of any salinity and salt water. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That doesn't mean that there is 
sustained water on the surface over any particular period of 
time? 

MR. GOING: That is correct. Many of the areas 
within Santa Clara Valley have no water in them, but they are 
considered wetlands, and we respect them for that. They could, 
at some point in time, generate water or they could hold water. 
I don't think that's necessary to define, actually, wetlands. 



10 

SENATOR PETRIS: Who determines, if there's a 
dispute, if I want to develop an area and it's opposed because 
it's wetlands, who determine whether it's wetland or not? The 
local agency involved with the permit process or -- 

MR. GOING: I think through the permit process, the 
Corps; the permit process, the Corps. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The Corps of Engineers? 

MR. GOING: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

SENATOR ALQUIST: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just say a 
word of rebuttal to this person's attack on Mr. Going. 

As one of the partners in one of the most respected 
engineering firms in the state, I'm certain that Mr. Going knows 
far more about flood control and purification of water than this 
individual here, who seems to think the only qualification to 
being a member of one of these Water Boards is to be a member of 
the Sierra Club. 

Well, I belong to the Sierra Club, and I think it's a 
very highly respected organization in many ways, but I think 
it ' s under control of some of the more far-out members at the 
present time who don't understand the necessity for 
environmental and economic balance. 

The economy of our state is in sad shape, and it 
depends heavily on water because California is a water-deficient 
state. And we'd better have people on these Water Boards who 
understand the need of proper economic approach to some of these 
problems, and you would be making a serious mistake if you 
refuse confirmation of Mr. Going. 



11 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe I wasn't listening, but I 
didn't hear him mention the Sierra Club at all. He doesn't 
represent the Sierra Club. He didn't say anything about them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There are going to be ten more 
here, Senator Alquist, I think. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe you ought to wait for the 
Sierra Club witness. 

SENATOR ALQUIST: I'm quite certain, Senator Petris, 
that you heard of the press conference and the attack on 
Mr. Going that took place here about a month ago after his first 
appointment . 

SENATOR PETRIS: By this fellow here? 

SENATOR ALQUIST: And certainly you have been -- if 
your office hasn't been flooded with Sierra Club letters of 
opposition to this appointment, then you're different from my 
office because I have many that I consider totally 
unsubstantiated and unknowing of the character and ability of 
Mr. Going. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think we ought to address 
that when it gets here, but it doesn't mean that everybody who 
opposes it is under the thumb of the Sierra Club. 

This is a totally different outfit that I never heard 
of before, and -- 

SENATOR ALQUIST: I never heard of this person, 
either. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, he didn't mention the Sierra 
Club, so I think we ought to wait until the Sierra Club -- 



12 

SENATOR ALQUIST: They're the ones that have been 
leading the opposition. 

SENATOR PETRIS: All right. Let's wait until they 
testify and then we can question them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mostly for purposes, I guess, of 
my own amusement, I point out that the federal map of wetlands 
include the garden on the roof of the Kaiser Building in 
Oakland. 

I suggest, as the gentleman has indicated, or no, I 
guess Mr. Going indicated that there may be some need to work a 
bit on the definition. That listing would suggest there is such 
a need . 

You had another point that I think you wanted to 



make? 



here? 



MR. LIVINGSTON: Could I just clarify a few items 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: I am representing Clean Water 
Action, which is the nation's largest water policy group and has 
been in existence for 20 years. And we are one of over a dozen 
groups at least, and you saw the list a little earlier, that are 
involved in questioning some of the concerns here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Livingston, could I interrupt 
that. 

I know we talked a bit about the economic value of 
wetlands. You'd also posed the question of Superfund cleanup. 
Did we get a response? 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Just before we leave the wetland 



13 

issue, reports that have been out recently show that we have 
450,000 — 454,000 acres only remaining in California of 
wetlands. We've lost 91 percent of our wetlands, a greater 
percentage than any other state. 

Preservation and restoration of wetlands is crucial 
in this state. Approximately $10 billion a year in economic 
value is generated through the various means that I mentioned 
through wetlands in flood control and water quality control. It 
has a tremendous economic impact, and that's what we expect a 
water quality expert to realize and put that in the balance as 
we look at development economic value as well, as part of the 
economic cost benefit analysis that we want a water quality 
expert to represent. 

The question of cleaning up state Superfund sites, 
Cortese list sites, is the other question I had on environmental 
qualifications . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Going, you may not have gotten 
to this particular matter. Did you have any thoughts you'd like 
to share with us on the Cortese requirements? 

MR. GOING: I'm sure you're aware that many, many, 
maybe most of the Superfund sites happen to be in the Bay Area 
in Santa Clara County. I, for one, am highly supportive. In 
fact, in a number of instances, I have been the vote that, along 
with the rest of our Board, that has set up the program and the 
funding in the cleanup of these. 

And I believe, yes, that they should be cleaned to 
every extent possible, that the water eventually that has been 
penetrated with pollutants is cleaned enough to become potable 



14 

water. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I didn't quite get the name of the 
organization you represent? 

MR. LIVINGSTON: I represent Clean Water Action. 

SENATOR AYALA: Clean Water Action. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: What does that have to do with 
wetlands? 

MR. LIVINGSTON: The Clean Water Act itself includes 
protection of wetlands as part of the surface waters of the 
United States. That includes Section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act. 

There is a major national controversy now over how to 
protect wetlands and how to restore wetlands. And as I said, 
water -- our drinking water aquifers, often the wetlands filter 
out toxics and pollutants and help to recharge those aquifers. 
We have a severe aquifer problem; 4 percent of our water in 
Southern California, for example, comes from underground 
aquifers . 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't recall anyone, in the over 15 
years that I was involved with the State Water Project, oppose 
wetlands. The only problem was that some of you folks who were 
pushing for the wetlands don't tell us where the water's going 
to come from, except from available water, and we're not going 
to let you do that. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: You've got to develop new water. We 



15 

all support wetlands. 

So, I don't understand the problem between the Clean 
Water Act and all these other good things or wetlands. Wetlands 
are not a problem. Getting water for the wetlands is a very 
severe problem. And until we get a new source, I don't think I 
could support it. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Right. 

I agree that water quantity is very important, but 
also having the acreage available to deliver that water, too, 
and to preserve that habitat, and that economic value in those 
wetlands is also very important. 

So, that's why we are concerned about it; it's 
economy as well as the water quantity, which is, of course, the 
major ongoing debate in the State of California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What else, Mr. Livingston? 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Could I speak to the conflict of 
interest issue very briefly. 

And these are really questions that -- I do not yet 
understand the full source of income and potential conflict of 
interest that could be generated in the future. I have offered 
this, the federal regulations on conflict of interest that apply 
to state programs, which refer to the fact that, in Section (c) 
here, it says that: 

"State NPDES programs shall ensure 

that any board or body which approves all 

or portions of permits shall not include 

as a member any person who receives, or 

has during the previous 2 years received, 



16 

a significant portion of income directly 

or indirectly from permit holders or 

applicants for a permit." 
And there's a 10 percent rule and a 50 rule. 

So, we are -- what we are questioning is, and it's 
still a question, we need to know more about the sources of 
income of Mr. Going. Is he receiving 10 percent of his income 
in the last two years, or could he in the future receive such an 
amount of income, from permit holders, or through his firm from 
permit holders, or through his stock holdings from permit 
holders? That's a very small portion of your income. 

And this is the federal law that allows the 
delegation through this memo of understanding, memorandum of 
agreement, between the U.S. EPA Region 9 and the State of 
California. It allows that delegation of authority for NPDES 
permits . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's ask Mr. Going. 

I know you are aware of this being potentially an 
issue, and it seems to be sufficiently difficult for Mr. Burke 
that consideration of his appointment has been postponed until 
we have further legal analysis. 

With respect to your own circumstances, can you 
comment on the two rules, of the 10 percent and the 50 percent? 

MR. GOING: I comply with all the rules, and the 
answer is no. I don't receive any compensation of any 
significant amount that would impact either the 10 or the 50 
percent rule. 

I provided my list of clients over the last two 



17 

years. Santa Clara University -- I can certainly name them -- 
Kaiser Foundation Hospital, and I do their government affairs 
works in their new hospital in Santa Clara. I also have ongoing 
relationship with Mission Trail Waste System, a garbage company 
that serves exclusively the City of Santa Clara, and I do this 
in aiding them in their negotiations for their contract. 

I did abstain at one instance on a landfill that they 
had a subcontract on through the City of Santa Clara. The 
applicant, in the closing of the landfill, was by the City of 
Santa Clara, and I did abstain just because I do receive some 
compensation from Mission Trail, even though they are not the 
applicant or the involved party. 

My other -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The federal law, as you know, is a 
prohibition to serving on the board, not just a requirement of 
recusal and abstaining on items . 

MR. GOING: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: To your knowledge, you have not 
bumped into the 10 percent threshold? 

MR. GOING: Not at all. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: And just to make it clear, I'm 
referring to his income as a civil engineering consultant, are 
there any clients that are NPDES permits from that income, from 
Ruth & Going, Incorporated, which he has been an owner in the 
past and receives some income from currently as a seller or -- 
I'm not quite sure what the exact relationship -- and from RSE, 
Inc., which owns a gas well. 

And we're also ~ so, those are the major concerns we 



18 

have in terms of conflict of interest. And we ask you to look 
seriously at that because we do not want anyone sitting at the 
Board who could throw our memo of agreement out into the winds 
here with EPA. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. LIVINGSTON: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask Senator Campbell and 
Senator Kopp, I believe, both wanted to address the issue before 
us . 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: Senator Kopp was waiting before I 
was . 

SENATOR KOPP: Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Members, I speak of a perhaps different 
realm from my knowledge of Mr. Going, which began about 1980, 
during the time I was a member of the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission. He represent Santa Clara University 
with respect to transportation issues that were a part of MTC ' s 
responsibility . 

I advise you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
that he was unfailingly courteous, intelligent, helpful, never 
arrogant, and always gave evidence of a person who was 
scrupulous and very careful in anything he represented to 
members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, including 
myself . 

And I would expect him to conduct himself in that say 
way as a matter of the Water Board, and that's a very important 
set of qualifications and characteristics to bring to a 
difficult board. 



19 

And so I appear in support of his confirmation, and I 
thank you for your attention, Members of the Committee, and I 
thank Senator Campbell for deferring to me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Campbell. 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was intending to be here at the start — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's fine. 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: — and the other committee, as you 
know. 

I've known Mr. Going for a period of years in regard 
to his work for the homeless. And it's not exactly an immediate 
application to this appointment, I know, but it speaks to the 
quality, and character, and compassion of the individual. 

He has been, for the last three years, the President 
of our second Harvest Food Bank, which just does miracles for 
the homeless people of Santa Clara County. 

To the extent I'm a judge of character and 
compassion, Mr. Going has those in sterling quantities, and I 
would urge the Committee to hold him in as high esteem as I do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'd like to ask my friend and 
colleague, I meant to ask Senator Kopp, too. 

I don't think his character is at issue. We've had 
wonderful reports, and about his training as an engineer. 

The question here is, does he know anything about 
water quality. The assignment specifically requires someone who 
is an expert on water quality. 



20 

To you knowledge, have you dealt with him on those 
kind of — 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: No, nor do I represent that I 
have . 

My dealings with Mr. Going have been on the question 
of the homeless and getting food for hungry people. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And clean water at the same time? 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: Hopefully that's right. 

That is my full answer to your question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator Campbell. 

Mr. Going, did you wish to comment further on water 
quality expertise? 

MR. GOING: I think maybe I should, Senator, to 
respond . 

One of my first professional jobs, in fact it even 
began when I was a student at Santa Clara University, I worked 
for Charles Gilman at the University of California at Berkeley 
and George Sullivan Hyde, a survey of San Francisco Bay. And 
this was -- I started out just taking buckets of water out of 
the Bay and having them tested. 

But this is something that I started with, and from 
thereon, I worked as a professional, as a consultant, to the 
Rincon water treatment plant in Saratoga, California, to the -- 
at that time the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water 
District, which is now just a water district. I was a 
consultant to them also in the transmittal of the water from one 
end of the county to the other for the imported water that came 
in from the Delta. And I've been a consultant throughout that 



21 

area. 

My civil engineering, I can't say I ' m an expert in 
anything exactly, but I think as an engineer and what I have 
worked on certainly gives me the experience that I need to judge 
clean water and to work towards clean water in this state and in 
our region. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next witness. 

MR. CAMERON: I'm Bill Cameron of the Sacramento 
Chapter of the United Anglers of California. It represents 
50,000 members in the state. 

And since there is a direct relevance of good water 
quality to good sport and commercial fishing, the United Anglers 
of California doesn't believe that the confirmation of Mr. Going 
to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 
would be conducive to good fisheries. We base this in large 
part upon his background. 

I 'm finished. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your comments. 

Questions, Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: If I may ask, what did he do in a 
negative sense as it applies to fishing in his past? 

MR. CAMERON: Well, looking over the things that he's 
done, it doesn't tend to parallel the — what fisheries would 
be. It doesn't tell me that there's an awareness of the 
fisheries . 

It's an engineering background, and other items in 
there, and businesses, and so forth. 



22 

SENATOR CRAVEN: You think that people who are 
anglers -- 

MR. CAMERON: I would want to see somebody that's 
somewhere in between them, not necessarily Sierra Club, but 
somebody that there was evidence that there was some background 
in there, some awareness. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Suppose he said to you, "I'm very 
much interested in angling, fishing." Would you take that and 
believe that? 

MR. CAMERON: I would have to know -- I would have to 
know if he belonged to any clubs that were of a conservation 
nature. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, that's fine. 

MR. CAMERON: I would give it consideration. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Very good. 

Well, if he made a statement that, "I'm with you a 
hundred percent," would that make you feel better? 

MR. CAMERON: Well, I think so, if I could see other 
items, I would look at the total picture. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: What other items would you like to 
see? 

MR. CAMERON: Well, I'd like to see if he belonged to 
any conservation organizations, any other things in the Bay Area 
that are related to that. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, I think you have a feeling 
that you have to have a hands-on with whatever you're discussing 
here, or you're really on the outside. 

I belong to the United States Humane Society, and I 



23 

have for years. I have no pets at all, you see, but I'm very 
much interested. 

And it's entirely possible that he's just as 
interested in fisheries, or whatever, and not even be a 
fisherman. 

I have never fished in my life, and if my luck holds, 
I never will. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. CAMERON: If I could say, in answer to that — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: After term limits, you know, it 
might be — 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. CAMERON: I would say that we're in an age right 
now where our fisheries are falling very badly. The coho 
fishing is just about disappeared in Oregon and Washington. The 
striped bass fisheries have been reduced significantly. 

And if I could go back historically to a time about 
the turn of the century, we had the biggest white bass 
commercial fishery in the Bay, inside the Bay. And what's 
happened, what's decimated that fishery is the pollution in the 
Bay. 

So, anything that we could think of that will better 
the quality of the Bay, we're all for. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I understand that. 

MR. CAMERON: It's a crisis, and so we have to look 
very critically at any appointments that will lead or point a 
little to the off side where we're going to be concerned. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 



24 

MR. GOING: Senator, may I say that the better part 
of my diet is fish. I very seldom eat meat. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, that might be bad; I don't 
know. 

MR. GOING: I don't know, but I certainly want to 
protect our fishing industry. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're depleting the fishery. 

MR. GOING: I went fishing once. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. FEINSTEIN: Mr. Chairman and Senators, my name is 
Arthur Feinstein. I'm the Program Coordinator for the Golden 
Gate Audubon Society. We have 55-6,000 members at present. 

I have been with the Society for the Chapter for 
around 15 years. I've served in the volunteer capacity as 
President and Conservation Chair for approximately ten years 
before being fortunate enough to get a job with them. 

I'd like to talk on several issues. Before I start 
in, I'd like to read a paragraph from a position paper from the 
Planning and Conservation League. The Bay Area Audubon Council 
is a board member on the Planning and Conservation League. They 
have taken a position opposing Mr. Going, and I'll read just 
this one paragraph which says that: 

"Mr. Going is not qualified to serve 

because he has exhibited a disregard for 

the public's right to participate in 

Regional Board proceedings . His comments 

at the Board hearings indicate that he 

sees himself as an advocate for the 



25 

applicant appearing before the Board, 

rather than as a regulator attempting to 

protect a public trust resource." 

And I would like to speak on those -- 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Does that mean that he's denied an 
opinion? Basically that's what you're talking about. 

Your opinion was this way; his was that way. And are 
you going to deny him that option? 

MR. FEINSTEIN: Actually, I'll go into this, and I'll 
explain what I mean. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Can't you go into it now? 

MR. FEINSTEIN: Okay, I'll do it right now. 

He has — everybody is entitled to an opinion. 
However, when you are a regulator on a public agency whose 
responsibility is the beneficial uses of water and to protect 
the water quality, one assumes that one will listen objectively 
to all viewpoints, and then come down with a decision on the 
side of water quality. 

Now, in the meeting that I was at in September, 199 3, 
that treated with the Mayhews Landing wetlands project, which 
you've heard before, the substance of that project was that 
there was no project actually detailed. The City of Newark, in 
which it would take place, had no plan from the developer for 
that project. 

There was a general plan in the city that had 
indicated that on the site of this project, some development may 
take place, but that before that took place further 
environmental evaluation would be necessary. 



26 

Before the Regional Board -- the question was before 
the Regional Board whether or not to approve water quality 
certification for this project. In other words, would this 
project have an impact on the waters of our Bay? 

Again, there was no CEQA documentation on this 
project; there was not even a project yet. Other than, there 
was a Corps permit for this project, but again, there was no 
details on the project. 

Staff recommendation, and Regional Board counsel 
recommendation, was to deny the project without prejudice simply 
because there was not the available knowledge for the Board to 
make a reasonable decision on whether there would be any water 
quality impacts resulting from this project, since there had 
been no environmental documentation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Let me stop you at that point. 

Are you referring to the knowledge inherent in a 
trained professional, or the bunch of professionals or lay 
persons who sit in judgment, collectively, not enough 
information has been given them by staff? 

MR. FEINSTEIN: No, I'm saying that there was not 
enough information for anyone to make a determination on this 
project because no one had investigated the project yet. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: So, in effect, what I said last was 
correct. 

MR. FEINSTEIN: Yes. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you. 

MR. FEINSTEIN: Continuing with that, there was no 
written environmental documentation. Staff recommended 



27 

temporary denial, basically. 

There was considerable public testimony on the 
project, recommending supporting the staff position of denying 
the project. 

And yet, the project was approved, with Mr. Going 
acting -- and again, we have copy of the transcripts here -- 
Mr. Going acting more and more as a proponent rather than an 
objective regulator of a project. In fact, at one point the 
Chairperson of the Regional Board at that time — let's see; I 
don't know if I have it — said: 

"I would like to say that I'm a 
little concerned about even the tone of 
the comments to a certain extent from the 
Board because we as a Board have to follow 
the rules in which we are mandated. We 
are not here to either represent or not 
represent a developer. " 

Now, that's an unusual comment for a president to 
make on a -- at a hearing, essentially reprimanding a board for 
taking a proponent position on a project. And Mr. Going was one 
of the most expressive and positive in terms of this, and let me 
read another comment that he said: 

"To me, this borders on an economic 
situation and economy in an area that 
needs it, and because of a technicality 
like this, we hold up a project." 
"Because of a technicality like this," well, what was the 
technicality? The technicality was water quality certification. 



28 

Well, if that's how you view your role, if you view 
yourself simply as — water quality as a technicality in the way 
of economics, then are you actually an objective regulator who's 
out there trying to preserve our water quality? I submit that 
that's not the case. 

We have a statement right here where Mr. Going states 
that he sees his role, water quality, as a technicality that's 
getting in the way of economic development. 

Well, first place, we argue, as Mr. Livingston said 
previously to myself, that that's not the case. It's not 
environmental interest's job. In the Bay Area, projects can get 
through, jobs can get done, but you don't ruin your environment 
at the same time because ultimately you ruin jobs in the long- 
term. 

Just a quick digression, we've been talking about the 
value of wetlands, this is the study that Campaign for 
California Wetlands put out on fisheries. If you look at this 
chart, and I'll leave this with you — I'm sorry I only have one 
page — so, you can see how this chart goes down. This is jobs. 
This is jobs in our salmon industry. They went from 50,000 to 
10,000 from 1978 to 1992; 40,000 jobs lost, not an insignificant 
number if we're talking about economy. 

Where ' d those jobs disappear from? They disappeared 
because of water quality and wetlands. That's what this report 
says. This shows that wetlands, loss of wetlands, was the major 
significant factor in the loss of 40,000 jobs. 

So, when Mr. Going gets there and says "because of a 
technicality we may hold up a project," well, because of the 



29 

technicality, we lose 40,000 jobs if we pass this project, 
perhaps, in the cumulative impact component of it. 

So, that's our concern here in terms of how Mr. Going 
views his position as a regulator, and we have it in his 
statements . 

I wanted to touch briefly on one other element, which 
is the way he views the California Environmental Quality Act. 
Again at this hearing I was at, this was a question of whether 
we needed an environmental impact report on this project. The 
project was not even in existence yet. No design. There was a 
design for mitigation. There was comments from resource 
agencies on both sides of that design, but there was no project 
design for the actual project itself, which includes other 
things besides wetlands. 

In any case, when the staff and the counsel proposed 
that there should be more environmental documentation, Mr. Going 
-- and I don't find it in the transcript, but I was there. I 
specifically remember Mr. Going at one point saying: Why do we 
need more CEQA documentation; we all know that all it deals with 
is traffic. 

And if you do look at what is in the transcripts, 
you'll find that over and over again he refers to EIRs dealing 
with traffic and other issues, but traffic. 

It became very clear at that meeting that Mr. Going 
considered CEQA something that only deals with whether we're 
going to have congestion or not, not whether we're going to 
actually find out what is the impact to our water quality in the 
Bay. 



30 

I do not believe that this is the kind of person we 
want on so important a board that has so little respect for the 
California Environmental Quality Act that he says it's just a 
technicality, again; who has so little regard for water quality 
that he says this is just a technicality. What we need is jobs, 
ignoring the fact that wetlands mean jobs. 

We urge you to reject this nomination, not to confirm 
the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Going, maybe it would be appropriate to ask you 
to add any clarification to the transcript, if you would wish 
to. 

What was the "technicality" that was at issue in the 
Mayhews Landing dispute? 

MR. GOING: Well, thank you, Senator. 

I have high respect for Mr. Feinstein, and I don't 
want to argue or certainly show any displeasure, but I really 
believe part of this was out of context. 

I did look at the EIR that was prepared by the City 
of Newark for their general plan. And then, in that EIR, there 
was a specific area addressed, the Mayhews Landing area, for 
development. 

I've worked since 1972 in CEQA, and NEPA became the 
law of the land in California in preparing and doing EIRs, and 
during my professional time with my former company. 

We took the general plan EIR, if it was specifically 
addressed to an area for a project. That was acceptable. 

Did not mean that there was not more requests that 



31 

would be made by the city for archaeological, for water testing, 
for soil, for toxics, for traffic studies and all. And this is 
what my reference was . 

I felt, and our staff informed us, this might be the 
only opportunity we had to look at this project. 

I still believe that what I did was in the best 
interests of the public. And I'll stand behind my decision. I 
still feel that, number one, we look at, and I'm required to 
look at, clean water, the environment, but also I think there is 
some responsibility in the law that says you must look at the 
economic impact. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell me again what you thought, 
what technicality were you addressing at the time? 

MR. GOING: I understood the technicality was the 
fact that we may not have another opportunity to look at the 
CEQA document or an EIR on that project. That's what our staff 
had told us. 

Our staff also advised that we could go either way on 
this. I was one of seven votes in favor of it. 

And I think if you -- I know you have copies of the 
transcript, and I don't think I spoke that much for the project. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Wasn't the approval subsequently 
reversed by the State Board? 

MR. GOING: It was overturned by the State Board, I 
think on the basis that a full EIR should be required to meet 
the CEQA document . 

But I still felt that my interpretation, since this 
had been the policy that's been carried on in the Bay Area, and 



32 

cities in their general plans have been acceptable. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have here a copy of the Code that 
defines the duties of a regional board, and I'm referring to it 
because sometimes the environmental protectors who come in are 
severely criticized for being too lopsided, you know, in their 
views. They just go overboard for the environment; they don't 
take into account these other factors that you mentioned. 

Now, as I read this, it says: 

"Factors to be considered by a regional 

board in establishing water quality 

objectives shall include, but not 

necessarily be limited, to all of the 

following ..." 
And it lists six paragraphs, five of which have to do with water 
and water quality, and only one, which (d) — (a), (b), (c), (d) 
-- lists economic considerations. Well, I correct myself. 
There's also (e) that says a need for developing housing, which 
comes after that. 

But the first is: "past, present, and probable 
future beneficial uses of water. " That seems to be the first 
priority. 

The second one is, "environmental characteristics of 
a hydrographic unit . " 

The next one is, "water quality conditions." 

And then (d), we have, "economic considerations.'' 

So, I think all of us are aware that you can't ignore 
the economic considerations, especially now when we're in a 



33 

terrible recession. We're all looking for ways to increase the 
number of jobs. 

But from the standpoint of the Code, it seems to me 
the Board members are directed by the Code to consider all of 
these items, and apparently, in that order. 

Anyway, that's what I thought I'd bring to your 
attention. You're familiar with that, I'm sure. 

MR. GOING: Yes, I am, Senator. Thank you. 

And through the Chair, I would like to respond. 

I want you to know that I feel very strongly in 
following that. And I believe I have shown that. 

There seems to be only this one issue. I've 
certainly supported in every action taken by our Board clean 
water, the wetlands, and all the environmental issues that 
refers to and that you have discussed. 

SENATOR PETRI S: Thank you. 

MR. PAPARIAN: Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm Mike 
Paparian, and I do represent the Sierra Club. 

In the interest of time, I'll indicate that I agree 
with what the previous speakers have indicated. I'm sure 
Mr. Going is a fine individual, and an appropriate appointment, 
maybe, for many positions, but this isn't one of them. 

California's precious water supplies and California 
environment deserve better. 

In looking over his record and qualifications, we 
find that Mr. Going does have some questionable qualifications 
for the seat he holds, and he has demonstrated a bias and 
antipathy towards many environmental concerns . 



34 

We strongly urge opposition to his appointment. 

David Nesmith from our San Francisco Bay Chapter, has 
been monitoring many of the actions of the Regional Board and 
wants to make some specific comments about some of the actions 
that he's observed. 

MR. NESMITH: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I do want to reiterate that, as Sierra Club 
representative in the San Francisco Bay Chapter, I have no 
complaints whatsoever. In fact, everyone that I have spoken to 
about Mr. Going has emphasized his character and integrity and 
honesty, and his dedication to community service, and his 
involvement in the community, and his long-term dedication to 
the public. 

And I think, certainly, the Sierra Club has no 
questions about your character and integrity. 

I would suggest that a regional water quality control 
board is an environmental first; an agency which has an 
environmental mandate first. 

And it is extremely important to all of us that the 
San Francisco Bay remain as healthy as it is and become more 
healthy, hopefully. To the extent that the San Francisco Bay's 
environment continues to decline, additional water from Senator 
Ayala ' s area and other upstream areas will be required to flush 
out whatever poisons we succeed in putting into the Bay. 

The Mayhews Landing case, I think, has become a 
flash point because it was such a blatant example of a situation 
where there were exactly three sentences in the Newark City 
general plan regarding Mayhews Landing; three sentences. 



35 

On the basis of these three sentences, the Regional 
Water Quality Control Board majority decided that they could 
certify, provide water quality certification. 

It's true, this was the Regional Board's only chance 
to review this project. And to my way of thinking, they 
squandered that chance by voting for a water quality 
certification without any water quality information. 

And during the October meeting, at which I was 
present, Mr. Going went into some amount of detail as to his 
frustration with the environmental concerns being expressed by 
the public. Got more and more visibly restless about the amount 
of environmental concerns that were being raised. And at one 
point during a response by the nominee, he said that 
environmentalists don't need paid jobs. 

Well, I'm not sure what he is referring to. I know 
that he's got a lot of involvement in a lot of other public 
issues. I imagine that he understands that there are 
volunteers and staff in a lot of different places where there 
are public involvement, but I thought that that kind of comment 
was -- had a dampening effect, or a potentially dampening 
effect, on the concerns that were being expressed. 

The final thing I'd like to say is that let's be 
clear that the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the San 
Francisco Bay Region is one of the potential pilot programs for 
a federal-state partnership delegation of wetlands enforcement 
responsibility. It is very important for all of us in the State 
of California, if this federal-state teamwork should come to 
fruition, that we have a Regional Board which can acquit itself 



36 

with integrity, and with a reasonable understanding of the laws. 

And I think that a Regional Board with transportation 
engineers on it is not going to be as well respected or as well 
qualified to acquit themselves in this area as one that has 
persons on it especially filling the seat of the special 
competence in the area of water quality problems, as the present 
nominee would represent. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have a couple of questions. 

The first is, is this the only vote that you'd 
consider negative that he has cast, or have you been tracking 
other votes that he has cast during the time he's been on the 
Board? 

MR. NESMITH: This is the most egregious type vote, 
if I could characterize it that way, vote, but there have been 
many other votes, and there have been other comments that 
Mr. Going has made more focused on the economics of the 
situation than on the environmental concerns. 

Now, I would be the first, as a card-carrying, paid 
environmentalist, to argue that the environment can't improve 
without economics improving also. But when you have a public 
trust agency which is a resource based -- natural resource based 
agency, I think it's very important to have board members who 
can make decisions based on the environmental trusts that they 
have been provided. 

And there have been others . I don ' t go to every 
meeting, but there have been other votes that have not been, in 
my opinion, helpful to the environment. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was that a unanimous vote of the 



37 

Board? 

MR. NESMITH: No, it was not. It was seven to two. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Seven to two? 

MR. NESMITH: Yes, the Chair and Otsea voted against. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And I understand that was the first 
reversal of the Board by the State Board? 

MR. NESMITH: My understanding was, it was the first 
reversal but, it was the Executive Director of the State Board, 
the first time that he, on his own, you know, did it in the 
whole state, sent it back in the whole state. This is the first 
time it happened in the whole state. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Not just the Bay Area, but anywhere. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you concluded? Thank you 
very much. 

MS. D'ALESIO: My name is Carole D'Alesio, and I 
represent a small environmental organization in Marin County of 
about 4,000 members. 

And I simply want to call your attention to a letter 
that we previously wrote. It was dated May 18th, and we do 
oppose the nomination of Mr. Going. 

Most of what I would have to say would be in 
agreement with what has already been said. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We appreciate your willingness to 
be nonredundant . Thank you very much. 

MS. D'ALESIO: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other comments? 

MS. HAMILTON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senator. 



38 

My name is Leslee Hamilton. I represent Silicon Valley Toxics 
Coalition, a community, labor and environmental organization in 
the South Bay that represents about 15,000 members. 

And with organized labor on our board, we do have a 
special consideration of balancing the need for jobs with 
environmental restoration and preservation. 

We are here to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Going 
because of that special issue of competency in water quality 
issues . 

As you're probably familiar, the South Bay has more 
Superfund sites than any county in this country. We have more 
than 100 groundwater pollution sites. 

It ' s imperative that whoever occupies the water 
quality seat on the Regional Board be concerned about protecting 
water quality and have that special expertise. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you tell me what labor 
organizations are members of your group? 

MS. HAMILTON: Certainly. There are the Service 
Employees International Union; the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers; the Central Labor Council, the AFL-CIO South 
Bay Labor Council itself has a seat on our board; Communication 
Workers . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Others? 

MS. MILLS: My name is Jane Mills. I'm hear speaking 
for the Marin Audubon Society, Marin County Audubon Society. 

I am just going to refer to our letter that we sent 



39 

to you. I think it speaks in greater detail that we support 
essentially what has been said so far in opposition to 
Mr. Going's nomination. 

I just want to be very brief, and that's all I have 
to say. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Fine, thank you very much. 

Good afternoon. 

MS. REHM: My name is Lindsay Rehm, and I'm with the 
Environmental Forum of Marin County. 

We have written to this Committee in opposition to 
Mr. Going's appointment. And I basically am in agreement with 
the previous speakers who have questioned the wisdom of 
appointed Mr. Going to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

I'd like to urge you to reject this appointment. 
Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MS. RAFTERY: My name's Mary Raftery. I'm with 
CALPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group. We're a 
statewide environmental, consumer, good government group. We 
have 70,000 members in this state, about 20,000 of those reside 
in the area that the Regional Water Board oversees . 

The San Francisco Bay is one of the most polluted 
water bodies in the country, and as a result, though we usually 
work on statewide issues, we've become more involved in local 
water quality issues there. 

I'll be brief. We just share the concerns that the 
other groups have already stated. 

Thank you. 



40 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

MR. LARSON: Good afternoon. I believe I'm the final 
speaker, but don't hold me to that. 

My name is Denny Larson. I'm Campaign Director with 
Citizens for a Better Environment in California. We are a 
statewide environmental watchdog group specializing in pollution 
prevention in the urban environment. We have about 15,000 
supporters in the State of California, and many are users of the 
beneficial aspects of San Francisco Bay and our other water 
resources within the region of this state. 

We are here, like the other folks today and groups, 
to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Going because he's not 
qualified for this seat. In his own statement to you earlier 
today, he admitted that he's not an expert in water quality. 

According to the document that states what his seat 
should be for, it says, and I quote: 

"having a special competence in the area 

of water quality problems." 
And we certainly have a lot of water quality problems in the Bay 
Area that need an expert to get them cleaned up. 

People have spoken about that quite significantly 
before, and I won't go into that. 

Quite simply, Mr. Going's record so far confirms that 
he's also not qualified for that seat, and he is biased toward 
the developers and industry on the Board. 

We also, along with the Silicon Valley Toxics 
Coalition, have special expertise in the health of the economy 
as well as water quality and environment. We know and believe 



41 

that they go together, and that we need not sacrifice our clean 
water for jobs. This has been documented in widely distributed 
and reported documents by MIT, as well as the Bank of America. 
And two years ago, we issued our own report called, "Clean, Safe 
Jobs," which documented in the Silicon Valley how industries can 
clean up their discharges and save money while doing it. 

This led to a landmark agreement with the City of San 
Jose to create low-interest loans to help industries do that and 
keep 5,000 jobs in Silicon Valley. 

Unfortunately, some people still want to paint 
environmental groups as being anti-jobs and anti-economy. And 
unfortunately, Mr. Going's statements so far at the Water Board 
hearings have put him in that camp. It confirms that he has an 
adversarial attitude and perspective toward not only 
environmental groups but public participation in the process as 
well, and a strong bias toward industry. 

We're very, very concerned because currently, our 
Water Board is already out of balance, and that Mr. Going's 
appointment will further put the Bay Area's Water Board further 
out of balance. That Board has already weakened copper 
standards for the Bay. 

We feel that this seat should be filled by an expert 
in water quality in the cleanup and the restoration of San 
Francisco Bay and our polluted drinking water, which are, as we 
have heard today, major problems in our region. 

Also, we're concerned because we feel that 
Mr. Going's appointment could contribute further to paralysis of 
our Board. Due to frequent recusals and potential conflicts by 



42 

other members of the Board, our Board was paralyzed for many, 
many months on the issue of selenium poisoning in our Bay. We 
had several Board members who held oil company stock and still 
do, and for about eight months, we couldn't get a quorum on the 
issue, or get any action. 

According to a letter from Steve Richie to your 
Committee, dated May 23rd, Mr. Going has recused himself twice 
in his brief tenure already. We don't need any more 
appointments on our Water Board that will cause any recusals. 
We've already been paralyzed for a long time on these important 
issues, as the man from the fishing group, the United Anglers, 
stated, our Bay is in crisis. 

Despite Mr. Going's statements to the contrary today, 
which have sounded very good to us, his record just doesn't back 
that up on the Board. 

And in summation, we urge you to reject his 
confirmation and send it back to the Governor to find us a water 
quality expert who can help us clean up the Bay. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Maybe I could ask, before you step down, your thought 
as to the imbalance on the Board. Is that a consequence of the 
kinds of slots that are designated under law to be filled, or is 
there some other cause of concern? 

MR. LARSON: Well, to speak frankly, we have had a 
very low opinion of past appointments of the Governor, both 
Governor's Deukmejian and Wilson, and we feel that this is not 
an isolated incident where the Governor has picked someone to 



43 

fill a slot on the Board inappropriately. 

And as I'd like to point out, there's a lot of people 
here who have testified today who go to Water Board meetings . 
None of Mr. Going's supporters , that I'm aware of, have been to 
a Water Board meeting. 

So, we are aware of how much talk we hear about jobs, 
jobs, jobs, which is important, and we support that. We don't 
hear, coming from our Board, talk about the need to protect 
water quality. We didn't hear that in Mr. Going's statement in 
either of these two hearings, either. 

We believe it's the result of past poor appointments 
by the Governor, and frankly, we've reached a point with these 
last two appointments where we're very, very concerned, and 
we're not going to take it any more. 

As you may know, we haven't been here to testify at 
past appointments, but we simply have reached a point with our 
Water Board where we can no longer tolerate these type of 
appointments. Our Bay is in crisis; our drinking water is in 
crisis. We need better expertise, and expertise that focuses on 
how we can clean it up. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Larson, you also mentioned in 
your correspondence that staff proposals on copper and selenium 
were not acted on by the Board, but I think those predate 
Mr. Going's services. 

Is that correct? 

MR. LARSON: Well, yes. 

Just to clarify, the selenium problem was one where 
there was no action due to a number of problems, one of which 



44 

was recusals by Board members. 

The copper standard was not an inaction, but it was 
an action taken by our Board and points to, again, this lack of 
balance. That Board, which of course did not include Mr. Going, 
did weaken water quality standards for copper pollution so that 
they are less environmentally protective than the federal 
standards for most of the water in the country. And that is 
evidence to the fact that we feel the appointments in the past 
have been out of balance. 

In looking at Mr. Going's record, we feel that his 
appointment will contribute further to this lack of balance. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions? Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: If I may, do you feel, aside from 
Mr. Going, do you feel the other members of the Board are 
qualified? 

MR. LARSON: We haven't looked at that issue, and I 
don't want to speak out on that. We do feel that there is a 
lack of balance toward their charge to protect the environment, 
yes . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: When you use the term "lack of 
balance, " you mean a technical expertise in various fields in 
which they are — 

MR. LARSON: Frankly speaking, we don't find too much 
of an advocacy or understanding of environmental issues on the 
Board. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Do you think the Board should be 
advocates? 

MR. LARSON: I think there are supposed to be at 



45 

least one or two slots for that, as there are slots for industry 
advocates on the Board. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, I would tend to disagree with 
you. I think the Board sits there and follow regulations, and 
they should neither be, you know, protestants or advocates, but 
look at it very objectively. Now, I think that's certainly a 
possibility. 

The reason I asked you if you felt that they were 
qualified, and I get a somewhat shaky response from you -- 

MR. LARSON: Well, I've stated clearly, we haven't 
looked at their qualifications here, and they're not up for 
confirmation, and we're not speaking about them. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's true. 

So, the very fact that you haven't looked into their 
qualifications, and they're not up for re-appointment, you just 
kind of leave them alone and you concentrate on him? 

MR. LARSON: We would be happy to participate in an 
oversight hearing on our Board. We think there are serious 
issues that the Senate should look into, and we would support 
you, Senator, in that. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That may very well be. 

Would you serve on that Board? 

MR. LARSON: I'd have to consult with my family, and 
I'd have to look at whether I was qualified. 

I have to state that I am not an expert on water 
quality, and I — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That shouldn't stop you. Everybody 
else that ' s testified -- 



46 

MR. LARSON: No — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: -- is probably in the same category. 

MR. LARSON: Well, actually, that's what we're 
testifying on. Mr. Going's seat is for special competence in 
water quality problems. 

If I were appointed to Mr. Going's seat, no, I don't 
have that competence, and neither does he. Neither of us should 
be up there . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who do you think has that? What 
kind of work history or educational background would be 
appropriate? 

MR. LARSON: I think someone would have to have both 
an educational expertise and a background of doing work in site 
remediation, waste water cleanup, the type of specific issues 
that come before the Board. 

It's clear that Mr. Going is an expert in 
transportation. That, unfortunately, is not an issue that the 
Board deals with. 

So, I think there should be a good deal of expertise 
in both education and practice in water quality, site 
remediation, waste water cleanup, pollution prevention which is 
now recognized by state and federal EPA as the way to correct 
some of these problems. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Going, you mentioned in a 
general way some experience that might be relevant, but how 
about those specific topics of -- 

MR. GOING: Well, I — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — waste water reclamation, site 



47 

cleanup -- 

MR. GOING: I keep getting hit because I ' m on 
transportation, but the transportation issue includes the 
concern and the replacements of wetlands. It includes cleanup. 

I'm sure you're well aware of what Caltrans has gone 
through, and I worked in that area where we, you know, have 
uncovered not only archaeological findings at highways, but in 
tanks where we've had to go in and do considerable clean up of 
waste water, and clean up of toxics in the underground water 
system. And I have been instrumental in that. In fact, I 
located two of the instances in the Highway 82 project that we 
spent a considerable amount of money seeing to it that it was 
cleaned up before that highway could be completed. 

I feel that I am as much an expert as anyone that I 
know in the field. I have worked in the field. And just 
because I have also experience in transportation, I don't 
believe that should disqualify me, you know, from this 
particular Board. 

I would like also to mention that I'm the -- I have 
had less excuses to step down from the dais in voting than -- 
only one other person has had less than I have had in the nine 
months that I have served on the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Is there anyone else who hasn't had an opportunity to 
comment that would wish to? 

Mr. Going, did you want to say anything in response, 
in either general or specific ways, to comments that have been 



48 

made? 

MR. GOING: Well, I'm hoping that the record and the 
transcripts somewhat speak for themselves . 

I did not tell people to go out and get jobs. What 
my statement was, and it was clarified, there is confusion 
because I was interrupted by the Chair, and I apologized to the 
Chair for extending my time in trying to make a motion. 

I did say that the gentleman had pretty much maligned 
two of us on that Board after the vote. I said he had a paid 
job, and he could support and house his family. That there were 
many people in California that did not have housing, could not 
feed and support their family, and that concerned me, and that 
this would create maybe up to a thousand jobs for the 
construction of the project. 

But that was not upper most in my mind. Upper most 
in my mind was mainly the environment, the cleaning of those 
wetlands, the preserving, and the multiple replacement wetlands, 
as well as the conveyance of the wetlands that were not going to 
be used. 

I'm sorry that I am sort of maligned over one 
particular vote in one project, where I was one of seven votes 
in favor. 

I have supported in every other way, in every other 
action on the nine months of my time on that Board, and 
certainly have pointed out in many instances my concern for 
flumes, and underground traveling of flumes that have toxic in 
them into our drinking water. 

Most recently, I just pointed out my concerns of 



49 

Coyote Creek in Santa Clara Valley, because the UTC site in 
Coyote, that is a Superfund site. It had not been addressed, 
and I was concerned about it. My -- it was answered 
satisfactorily and a permit was issued. 

I'm very much interested and, I think, very much 
concerned, and I believe I have the experience, and the 
background, and the education to fulfill my obligation in this 
position. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman, there's been a 
tremendous amount of opposition from a lot of different 
organizations, and there's been reference to the voting record. 
And Mr. Going himself refers to the record. 

We haven't had a chance to see it, at least I 
haven ' t . 

I would like to see thing go over at least until our 
next meeting, and I invite those both for and against to send us 
the voting record. I guess we can get it from the agency, but 
that would be helpful. Then, it would give us time to check out 
the economic factor, and maybe whether or not there's a 
conflict. 

We have your statement that whatever your income is, 
is certainly below the 10 percent, to say nothing of the 50, but 
you're not retired so that wouldn't apply to you, the 50; would 
it? 

MR. GOING: I'm beyond age 65. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that how it goes, based on age? 

MR. GOING: I think it's 60. 



50 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sixty with pension income, and 10 
percent, any form of income. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Full-time, yeah. 

So, I think we would benefit from a little more time 
on this. I'd like to make that suggestion. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's my understanding that that's 
customary practice, to provide us a week or perhaps longer, but 
at least a week, to review any specific information that members 
of the public may wish to send us, and for Mr. Going to respond 
to such. 

If there's no objection, that will be the order. 

MR. GOING: Mr. Chairman, I will be out of town next 
week. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We can schedule it at your 
convenience. I don't think you'd need to have further testimony 
unless something pops up that suggests that that would be wise, 
but we can schedule it so that you're able to participate if you 
need to. 

MR. GOING: Thank you, Senator. Thank all of you 
Senators. Thank you for a thorough discussion. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:50 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



51 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this c*rD " day of June, 1994. 



EVELYN J./MIZAK J 
Shorthand Reporter 




256-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 
1020 N Street, Room B-53 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Senate Publication Number 256-R when ordering. 






HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUL 8 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994 
2:20 P.M. 



257-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994 
2:20 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 

MEMBERS ABSENT 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The meeting will come to order. 

I have received a letter from Senator Frank Hill that 
reads as follows: 

"I hereby submit my resignation as 

Senator for the Twenty-ninth Senate 

District to become effective immediately 

upon an official judgment of conviction by 

the United States District Court of the 

jury's verdict in the case of UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA V. FRANK C. HILL." 
Senator Hill just provided us with this letter of resignation. 

We have tried to clarify exactly what timetable or 
dates are involved in the resignation action, and because of 
that, we've asked the Leg. Counsel to provide us with explicit 
opinions as to the relevant timetable and date. 

We especially wish to learn which motions are pending 
before the Court, and whether there is a timetable with respect 
to those motions that would clarify the explicit date of 
resignation if Senator Hill is unsuccessful in his efforts to 
seek relief from the verdict. 

Are there comments at all from other Members? 

SENATOR AYALA: Senator Hill's letter that you just 
read, he says: 

"to become effective immediately upon an 

official judgment of conviction by the . . . 

District Court . . . . " 



What does that mean? I thought he was already 
officially convicted. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's exactly what we've asked 
our lawyer to provide us with information about . 

Unfortunately, Mr. Gregory is ill today, and so we've 
had a little bit of a problem in getting a definite official 
opinion. We would hope to do that by Monday or Tuesday. 

The best answer, as an informal opinion, seems to be 
that the jury has rendered a verdict, but the judge has to 
provide some final action on that, and that motions have been 
made by Senator Hill's attorneys that would vacate or reverse 
the verdict. The judge seems to be required to act on those 
motions, that we think they're currently pending before the 
Court, but we would like to know exactly when that would be, or 
what it means as a legal matter. 

Other comments or questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: In his letter, he mentions nothing 
about that particular point, where he says that if the judge 
refuses or denies any of the three appeals, he would then resign 
immediately. His letter doesn't say that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Comments of that sort have been 
made, and I prefer to get them explicit and in writing and well 
understood. 

But just in informal discussion, there were comments 
by Senator Hill that suggested that he has no intention of 
dragging this on. He has no intention of putting the 
Legislature through the unpleasantness of casting a vote on 
expulsion; that he just would like the rather brief opportunity 



to vacate the verdict if he can, and that that should not take 
an undue amount of time. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Mr. Chairman, my only comment is, I 
would agree with your suggestion that we not act without full 
information as to the legal ramifications of the language in 
this resignation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, I agree. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is there a time — of course, you 
can't tell a judge, you know, how long he should take, but what 
if the judge decides to go on a month, two months, three months, 
before he renders his verdict? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, that's what we're trying to 
find out, whether the judge has established a specific schedule, 
and what it is, and — 

SENATOR AYALA: But can we say that it would be 
effective within ten days, unless the judge rules otherwise? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That would be, I think, an 
appropriate action once we get this information, Senator. 

I would expect, if the judicial timetable is 
unnecessarily slow, there may be a need for the Legislature to 
act independently, but let's find out first exactly what the 
judicial timetable is, since there seems to be some question 
about the matter. 

Any further questions? 

Thank you. We will adjourn, then, and resume 
probably Monday, if we can get these matters clarified by Monday 
afternoon Rules Committee meeting. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: The regular meeting? 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The regular meeting is set for 
Monday, yes. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:25 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 



CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this 0<0 day of June, 1994. 



"^^EVELYN J. MIZAK 
Shorthand Reporter 



257-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 257-R when ordering. 






V 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




qqCiimcmtS DEPT. 

AUG 1 7 1994 



~o 



%&&* 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1994 
2:18RM. 



258-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1994 
2:18 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

MARY JANE FORSTER, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 

SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON 

MICHAEL F. DILLON 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies 

JUDY JOHNSON, Chairperson 

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 

GORDON COLOGNE, Co-author 
Porter-Cologne Act 

KEN WITT, Member, Board of Directors 
Municipal Water District of Orange County 
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

VIRGINIA GREBBIEN, Assistant General Manager 
West Basin Municipal Water District and 
Central Basin Municipal Water District 

JOHN GASTON, Consulting Engineer 
CH2M HILL Engineers, Oakland 



Ill 



APPEARANCES ( Continued 1 

SUSAN M. TRAGER, Attorney- 
Law Offices of Susan Trager, Irvine 

SENATOR TOM HAYDEN 

LAURA HUNTER 

Environmental Health Coalition 

CAROL CLOSE, Resident 
Ramona 

BEN CLAY 

San Diego County Water Authority 

JENNIFER JENNINGS, General Counsel 
Planning and Conservation League 

ERNEST GOITEIN 

Peninsula Conservation Foundation of Palo Alto 

MICHAEL PAPARIAN 
Sierra Club, California 

J. GARY SHANSBY, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 



INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

MARY JANE FORSTER, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 1 

Introduction and Statement of Support 

by SENATOR MARIAN BERGESON 1 

Background and Experience 3 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

General Approach for Mitigating Impacts 

of Diversions from the Delta 6 

Location of Hearings on Setting Standards 

for the Bay 7 

Board's Intention regarding Legislative 

Approval of Adopted Standards 7 

Worst Water Quality Program in California .... 8 

Status of New River from Mexicali into 

Calexico 8 

Major Water Issue in California Today 9 

Support for Building Water Holding 

Facilities 9 

Witnesses in Support: 

MICHAEL F. DILLON 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies 10 

JUDY JOHNSON, Chairperson 

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board .... II 

GORDON COLOGNE, Co-author 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act 13 

KEN WITT, Member, Board of Directors 

Municipal Water District of Orange County 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California . . 14 



INDEX (Continued^ 

VIRGINIA GREBBIEN, Assistant General Manager 

West Basin Municipal Water District 

Central Basin Municipal Water District 16 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Apparent Contradiction in Record 19 

Report of Auditor General 2 

JOHN GASTON, Consulting Engineer 

CH2M HILL Engineers, Oakland 21 

SUSAN TRAGER, Attorney at Law 

Law Offices of Susan Trager, Irvine 2 3 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

SENATOR TOM HAYDEN 2 4 

Nominee's Vote in Favor of Expanding the 

Van Tol Dairy 2 5 

Negligence of San Diego Regional Water 

Quality Control Board in Imposing Penalties ... 26 

FBI Letter Removing Regional Board from the 

Hazardous Waste Strike Force 2 6 

State Board's Decision to Not Enforce Water 

Quality Standards in Delta 2 7 

Responses by MS. FORSTER re: 

Van Tol Dairy 2 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

U.S. EPA Advisory Council on 

Drinking Water 32 

Imposition of Penalties by San Diego Board .... 32 

Enforcement Record 34 

FBI Strike Force Issue 35 

Enforcement on the City of San Diego 3 7 



VI 

INDEX (Continued^ 
Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

New Direction in Enforcement 4 

No Net Loss for Fish 41 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Striped Bass not Native to Delta 41 

Response to Auditor General ' s Report on 

San Diego Regional Water Quality 

Control Board of July, 1987 42 

LAURA HUNTER 

Environmental Health Coalition 44 

San Diego Board's Lack of Enforcement 4 6 

Nominee's Vote to Leave High Levels of DCE 

in Drinking Water 4 7 

Chronic Toxicity Standards 4 8 

Vote on San Onofre Power Plant 4 9 

Break in Pt. Loma Outfall which Closed 

Beaches 4 9 

Regional Board's Lack of Action relative 

to City of San Diego 51 

Board Staff Chastised for Bringing 

Violations to Board's Attention 5 3 

Misrepresentations in Nominee's Fact Sheet .... 53 

Port District's Budget for Water Quality 5 5 

Van Tol Dairy 5 5 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Location of Dairy 56 

Agency Responsble 5 6 

Cookbook for Enforcement is Porter-Cologne Act . . 56 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Opposition to Fining Public Agencies 5 7 



Vll 

INDEX (Continued) 

Rebuttal by MS. FORSTER re: 

DCE in Groundwater 5 8 

Issue of Chronic Toxicity 59 

San Onofre 59 

Pt. Loma Outfall Break 5 9 

Beach Closures 6 

Response by MS. HUNTER re: 

EPA ' s Report of Negligence by City in not 

Maintaining Sewer System 6 

CAROL CLOSE, Resident 

Ramona, California 61 

Nitrates in Groundwater Wells 62 

Van Tol Dairy Expansion 6 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Size of Ramona's Underground Water 

Basin 6 6 

Use of Imported Water 6 6 

Request for EIR to Discover Source of 

Nitrate Pollution 6 7 

Rebuttal to Fact Sheet 7 

Responses by MS. FORSTER re: 

Dairies in San Diego County 7 5 

Groundwater Testing 76 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Reason State Board Reversed Regional Board ' s 

Decision on Van Tol Dairy Expansion 7 6 

Response by MS. HUNTER 7 7 



Vlll 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Extent of Underground Basins in San Diego .... 77 

Response by BEN CLAY, 

San Diego County Water Authority 7 8 

Portion Contaminated by Nitrates 7 9 

Statements by SENATOR CRAVEN 7 9 

Background Information on Ramona 7 9 

Meeting in Hallway with MS. CLOSE 80 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Philosophical Position with Respect to 

other State Board Members 8 3 

Most Difficult Decision while on State Board ... 84 

JENNIFER JENNINGS, General Counsel 

Planning and Conservation League 8 5 

Nominee ' s Statement that Regional Board 

Didn't Do EIRs 86 

Response by MS. FORSTER 86 

Statements by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Semantic Issue 8 7 

ERNEST GOITEIN 

Peninsula Conservation Foundation of Palo Alto .... 89 

MICHAEL PAPARIAN 

Sierra Club 9 

Concluding Statements by MS. FORSTER 9 

Motion to Confirm 91 

Committee Action 91 

J. GARY SHANSBY, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 91 

Background and Experience 92 



IX 



INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Cal State Representatives Telling Budget 
Subcommittee of Plan for Calculating the 
Cost of Education and Assessing Fees 94 

Feeling on Constant Fee Increases 9 5 

Talking to Governor about Increasing 

Taxes 9 7 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Questions Posed by SENATOR HAYDEN ' s Letter 

on Voting for Student Fee Increases and 

Various Forms of Executive Compensation 100 

Average Student Fee in U.S. Universities 102 

Perspectives relative to Faculty Workload .... 104 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Decrease in Recruiting Minority Students 

Due to Fee Increases 105 

Availability of Student Aid 105 

Question by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Alliance with Other Members of Board 106 

Request by SENATOR PETRIS to Hold Vote for 

One Week 107 

Termination of Proceedings 107 

Certificate of Reporter 108 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Bergeson, we're ready for 
your introduction. 

SENATOR BERGESON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 
and Members of the Committee. 

It's a pleasure for me to be able to introduce to you 
Mary Jane Forster, who is the Governor's appointee to the public 
member of the State Water Resources Control Board. 

It has been my pleasure to know Mary Jane for many, 
many years. Having shared many responsibilities dealing with 
local community efforts, I've known her to be a tremendously 
well respected member of the community and an activist in many 
ways. She was sought out for her leadership in many capacities, 
but she chose to become more identified with the issues of water 
resources . 

So, she has spent many, many years in becoming 
familiar with these issues, and in fact, is a well recognized 
expert in the area with anything that you'd care to discuss with 
water. She's there to tell you what she knows, and she does 
have a tremendous reservoir of knowledge. 

She's worked for over 20 years, both as an educator 
and as a public outreach specialist on issues that have been 
related to water resources. And for the last decade, she has 
worked as a regulatory legislative specialist, assisting county 
government, and cities, and water districts in complying with 
drinking water regulations that are mandated by federal and 
state laws . 



Her experience as a ten-year member of the San Diego 
Regional Board has given her a keen insight on the clean water 
program in San Diego, as well as the Clean Water Act. 

During her brief tenure with the Water Resources 
Control Board, she has shown her commitment to the 
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, and has illustrated to 
everyone that she is one of the state's brightest leaders when 
it comes to state water policy. 

I strongly urge all of you to become very familiar 
with her record, and I strongly urge you to give her full 
support and would hope that you would agree to see that she 
goes forward for confirmation. She's an outstanding candidate, 
and she's very worthy of your consideration. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, Senator. 
Your opinions are weighty and informed, and we appreciate your 
appearance. 

I think you're probably still in another committee 
meeting at this time. 

SENATOR BERGESON: I'll be across the way if need any 
more personal references. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay. 

Good afternoon. 

MS. FORSTER: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It looks like you've come with a 
prepared statement that you might start us with about your 
qualifications. If you would do that, please. 

MS. FORSTER: Sure, thank you. 



Chairman Lockyer and Members of the Committee, it's a 
privilege and honor for me to have this opportunity today to 
share with you my qualifications to serve as the public member 
of the State Water Resources Control Board. 

I thought to help give you a brief sketch of my life, 
I would break it up into short comments on my personal 
background and my professional background. 

I'm a graduate of the College of Mount Saint Vincent 
in New York. I have a degree in social sciences. 

I'm the mother of four children -- two boys, two 
girls -- and they're seventh generation Calif ornians . 

I've been very active in my community. I've been a 
Planning Commissioner in San Juan Capistrano. I started the 
Cultural Heritage Commission and served as a Commissioner for 
five years. I helped restore five historic buildings, two were 
used by the Native American Indians. 

I've been a supporter of the South County Health 
Clinic, which gives a lot of medical care for people who can't 
afford. I've been a keen supporter of battered women shelters, 
two of them in Orange County. 

Professionally, I came to California to teach for the 
Los Angeles City School system. The Urban League of Los Angeles 
hired me in 1965 to pilot test the very successful Head Start 
Program. 

I'm a writer and publisher for water education 
materials used for kindergarten through college levels, and I 
did that under the work of the Municipal Water District of 
Orange County. I was a governmental affairs manager for 



regulation and legislation with the Municipal Water District. 

I served as a member of the San Diego Regional Water 
Quality Control Board from 1983 to 1993. My water reclamation 
leadership, my leadership in trying to have secondary treatment 
for all coastal waters, except San Diego, which is under a court 
decree, and my help on starting our underground tanks program, 
our toxic sites, our leaking landfills, are some of the things 
that I point to in the San Diego Board that I worked very hard 
on. 

In 1990, I had the honor to be appointed to the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency's National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council. On that Council, I helped set 
the safe drinking water standards for 60 inorganic chemicals, 
also did the lead and copper rule, the groundwater protection 
rule. We conducted the National Pesticide Survey, and we were 
involved in the groundwater disinfection rule when I left the 
Board . 

So, that's sort of a glimpse of my professional 
career. 

This year on the State Board, I've acted as the lead 
for different state agencies on issues related to the 
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. This very important law 
governs the water quality of the waters of the United States. 

I represented the state in Washington, D.C. on two 
visits. The first was a briefing for California U.S. Senators 
and their staff writers, and the second was a briefing for the 
Congressional committees — the Public Works members and the 
Merchant Marine Fisheries members, plus their staff, plus all 



the House writers on the bill -- setting forth what California 
thought would make a better, improved Clean Water Act. Under 
Panetta ' s bill, we get 20 percent more funding, which is very 
needed for our waste water treatment plants. We're working hard 
to take care of the abandoned mine issues that are plaguing the 
San Francisco Bay. We're trying to get better federal laws to 
increase and enhance water reclamation, and we're working on 
wetlands issues. 

I've been the liaison for the Los Angeles and Santa 
Ana Regional Boards this year. I've been active on the Santa 
Monica Bay Restoration Project and the San Diego Bay Interagency 
Panel. 

I've been traveling around the state this year, 
talking about the watershed approach for resources. Watershed 
is supposed to be the new, integrated holistic way to better 
protect our waters. The state has a real active Non-point 
Source Control Program that I've been the Board spokesperson 
for. 

So, I would like to close in saying that it's a real 
honor for me to have been selected for this position. I feel 
that the public member is a person that has the honor to 
represent all Calif ornians, and I really believe all 
Calif ornians want a clean planet, and a clean environment, and 
it's with these closing comments that I welcome any questions. 
And again, thank you for having this hearing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your opening. 

Senator Ayala, did you wish to — 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a few questions when it's time 



for that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Go ahead. 

SENATOR AYALA: Ms. Forster, as you know, the Central 
Valley and Southern California pretty much depend on the 
transfer of water from the Delta, the San Francisco/San Joaquin 
Delta. 

What general approach do you favor for limiting or 
mitigating the impact of diversions from the Delta? We know 
that we can't continue doing that, but we must have some of that 
diversion in order to survive in Central and Southern 
California. 

So, what is the general plan that you or the Board 
has for the mitigation of those diversions from the Delta? 

MS. FORSTER: Well, as you know right now, Senator, 
we're going through the Bay/Delta hearing process. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm sorry? 

MS. FORSTER: We're going through right now the 
Bay/Delta hearing process. We're having our -- what we call the 
Triennial Review, and that's where we look at what's happening 
in the Delta. And we're trying to develop a new water quality 
control plan that will address how we're going to meet all the 
competing needs of the Delta. 

So, these workshops have been going on now for 
several months. Our last one is in July; we have one, maybe, in 
August if it's needed. And hopefully, in these one-day 
workshops, we've had Calif ornians coming from all over with 
several different options on how we're going to meet these 
needs, and hopefully in the December, we come to closure on how 



we're going to make it work this time, how we're going to have 
water for the cities, how we're going to have water for the 
farms, and how we're going to to have water for the environment. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Board is having public hearings 
currently on the standards for the Bay. We have standards for 
the Delta, but now the courts have directed that we also set 
standards for the Bay. 

Are you having hearings on that around the state? 
Where are you having the hearings to determine what those 
standards are to be? 

MS. FORSTER: In the Bay/Delta hearing process, 
Senator, the standards for the Bay are included. The water 
quality plan is for the whole Bay/Delta Estuary, and that 
includes San Francisco Bay. So, it's all within the work that 
we have commenced on and are trying to complete by the end of 
the year. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Board will complete their 
strategy for underground water quality, and so forth, by another 
year? Is that what you said? 

You're having hearings now. When will they come to 
a conclusion? 

MS. FORSTER: Right, we're having — at the end of 
the year. 

SENATOR AYALA: End of the year, okay. And does the 
Board intend to seek legislative approval of that strategy? 

MS. FORSTER: I can't — I don't know that right now, 
Senator. We'll just have to see how it all plays out. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't think you have to, but I 



8 

wondered if you were going to plan on doing that. 

What is currently the worst water quality program in 
the State of California? Where does that exist? 

MS. FORSTER: Coming from Southern California, I was 
not aware of what I think might — I've learned this year that 
one of the worst one — there's a lot of water quality 
problems . I have found out through my work on the Clean Water 
Act that the acid mine drainage coming out of abandoned mines 
that is going into the tributaries and estuaries and rivers of 
water that make it into the Bay are doing tremendous damage in 
copper contamination to San Francisco Bay. And I was unaware of 
that, and I think that's really a significant problem, and our 
Board is working really hard to try to figure out how to relief 
some of that impact. 

SENATOR AYALA: What about the New River coming out 
of Mexicali into Calexico? What shape is that in? 

MS. FORSTER: Well, we have initiatives working on 
that. I know that we funded money to help with Salton Sea this 
year. 

Salton Sea, all the people in that area have 
organized and are working on New River, Salton Sea, and in 
completing all the lining of their canals to help with their 
evapotransporation and their water transfer. 

So, a lot of work's being done on Board of Sanitation 
issues . 

SENATOR AYALA: Well, I know that problem is a 
federal issue, because it's an international boundary there that 
crosses, so I don't know how much we can do from the state 



9 

level . 

What do you consider the major water issue in 
California today, other than — 

MS. FORSTER: Supply. 

SENATOR AYALA: — shortage, drought, that sort of 
thing, which we can't control. 

MS. FORSTER: Probably supply. People want supply. 

SENATOR AYALA: Supply. 

MS. FORSTER: People want reliability. We have 
growing populations, shrinking water supplies. How do we 
distribute it fairly. It's a major problem. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you support building any water 
holding facilities to be released in times of need south of 
Tracy, the pumps there? 

MS. FORSTER: We just permitted Los Vaqueros 
Reservoir. 

SENATOR AYALA: You did what? 

MS. FORSTER: We just finished, our last Board 
meeting, we just finished the permits on Los Vaqueros Reservoir 
in Contra Costa. That's the largest off -stream storage that's 
been built in a long time. 

So, that's always been one of the options for 
solution, is off-stream storage, so in years of wet years, we 
can collect the water so we have it banked for dry years. 

SENATOR AYALA: I've often wondered what these folks 
who are opposed to completion of these water facilities, what 
are their answers when all these cities get flooded during the 
flood season, when we could capture that water and release it 



10 

down where it's needed, when it's needed? Yet, we would have 
some flood control over and above that. 

I don't know where these people come from that refuse 
to accept that premise, because unless you can, you know, 
capture that water when you have the flooding season, it just 
goes out to sea, serving no purpose. 

If we could capture it, and release it in due time 
when it's needed, I think it ' d be a great asset to the State of 
California. 

I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

There probably will be others. 

Let me ask if there are people who wish to comment in 
support of the nomination? Please come on up. 

MR. DILLON: Mr. Chairman and Members, Mike Dillon 
representing the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. 

We've known Mary Jane for 10 or 15 years, or maybe 
even longer, and are familiar with her qualifications. We think 
she has — is exceptionally well qualified. She's a problem 
solver and looks for consensus, which in this business, you 
often need. She's a very hard worker and has always been 
accessible, will make time to discuss the issues that are 
important to our industry as well as others of interest. 

I think her experience is unique in that she ' s had a 
lot of first-hand experience at the local level, knows what our 
problems are. She also has had state experience and knows the 
issues at the federal level as well. 

So, we would highly recommend that the Committee 



11 

approve her . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee, my name is Judy Johnson. 

I asked Mary Jane Forster if I could speak on her 
behalf today. I had two reasons. First, Mary Jane Forster is 
being criticized for her work on the San Diego Regional Water 
Quality Control Board. I believe unfairly so. 

I served with her on that Board for six years. I 
still serve on that Regional Board. In fact, I am honored by my 
colleagues to be the Chairman of our Board this year. 

Second, I firmly believe that Mary Jane Forster is a 
terrific nominee for this particular position: the public 
member of the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Regarding my first reason, the San Diego Regional 
Board, Mary Jane Forster has broad shoulders and is a strong, 
intelligent woman. She participated fully in the decision 
making of our Regional Board. 

But it must be remembered that we are a Board of nine 
individuals, strong in our own right, intelligent, sometimes 
opinionated, and always willing to speak our minds. A Regional 
Board is a panel of citizens, charged to look at all the 
information, listen to those who come before us, and then 
collectively to make the best decision that we can. 

If there was only way to protect the water quality of 
the State of California, and that was by the numbers, then this 
Legislature would not have needed to establish citizen panels. 



12 

Someone gave me a copy of the computer message which 
solicits letters and cards be sent to you, Mr. Chairman. 
Obviously, the bits and pieces of information taken out of 
context were designed to inflame our senses. 

The issues before a Regional Board can be complex, 
frustratingly slow to be resolved, and dynamic to the point of 
wanting to tear your hair out. You can pull anything out of 
context, as the opponents to Mary Jane Forster ' s nomination have 
done. 

Regarding my second point, honorable Members of the 
Senate Rules Committee, you have before you a woman of high 
integrity who brings a different palette of skills to the work 
of the State Water Resources Control Board. I believe, and I 
admit to my bias because I know this woman, that Mary Jane 
Forster is perfect for this position. She will listen to all 
who come before the State Water Resources Control Board. Quite 
frankly, she finds different opinions interesting and worth 
exploring. This is refreshingly unique. 

Yet, she also has the experience to understand the 
complex water issues which face us. This ability to listen, 
combined with the strength and knowledge of the issues, means 
that she has the ability to make the process bend to the will of 
the people. This, in my opinion, is exactly what the public 
member is supposed to do. 

I hope this Committee will see that this woman should 
continue her service to the citizens of the State of California, 
and that you will unanimously recommend her confirmation to the 
California Senate. 



13 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Senator, Justice -- 

SENATOR COLOGNE: Whatever. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, as the author 
of that famous or infamous Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, 
which is administered by the State Board -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What happened to Porter? 

SENATOR COLOGNE: — with my good friend Carley 
Porter, bipartisan effort, I come here in support of Mary Jane 
Forster . 

I've known her now for about ten years. Since I left 
the bench, I came back to look and see what that Act was doing 
for the State of California, and I was very pleased with what I 
saw. 

You may not think it's done everything that it could 
do, but let me tell you, it has done tremendous amount of good 
in cleaning up the waters of this state. And it's done by the 
energetic efforts of people like Mary Jane Forster. 

She's been on that San Diego Regional Board, and you 
know, you give them a lot of very difficult decisions to make. 
Mary Jane has stood up to it. She's been one that's supported 
the concept that penalties alone are a good idea, but the real 
solution to all these problems is cleaning up the waters of the 
State of California. And she's been a strong advocate of that. 
Penalties, yes, but not to the expense of the people in the 
district who have to do the job. And in San Diego, that's what 
she's done down there on the Board. She's provided the 



14 

outspoken support of cleaning up the waters of the Bay. 

The City of San Diego for years has been neglecting 
that problem, but the waters of the Bay, I'll tell you, are a 
lot better today than they were when we passed that Act in 1969. 

Mary Jane Forster is not only a good representative 
of the public at large in this regard, but she is also one who 
is very knowledgeable in this whole situation. There's nobody 
who understand water quality any better than Mary Jane. She has 
dedicated herself to learning the issues, understanding the 
issues, and coming up with the right decisions. 

And I can tell you, I wholeheartedly support her 
elevation from the Regional Board to the State Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Is there anyone else who would wish to comment? 

MR. WITT: Honorable Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, I am Ken Witt, the immediate past President of the 
Association of California Water Agencies, better known as ACWA, 
currently Board of Directors of both the Municipal Water 
District of Orange County and the Metropolitan Water District of 
Southern California. 

As you are well aware, ACWA members serve 90 percent 
of all of the agricultural and urban water in California. 

Mary Jane Forster has worked with me for two decades . 
What's that, 20 years? Holy mackerel. Two decades in the water 
industry. 

Her knowledge of water quality regulations was 
unsurpassed in the water community. She has been appointed by 
two Governors and one President to councils that oversee water 



15 

quality. Her pleasant manner, coupled with her knowledge, led 
me to appoint her as Chairman of ACWA ' s Environmental Committee, 
a member of ACWA ' s Water Quality and Legislative Committees, and 
a leader in ACWA ' s annual Washington, D.C. Delegation, Chairing 
the Clean Water Act Task Force. The drafters of the Clean Water 
Act in Washington, D.C. know and highly respect Mary Jane's 
leadership in carrying out the reauthorization of the Clean 
Water Act. 

In the early years of her career, as Mary Jane has 
said, she was a school teacher who pilot tested Operation Head 
Start in Los Angeles, and was hired by the Municipal Water 
District of Orange County. She instituted a massive and 
successful school program which we use today, some 20 years 
later, for over one million school children. She also served as 
consultant to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California and to the state's Department of Water Resources on 
educational matters . 

Before coming here to Sacramento, she was the 
governmental affairs coordinator for the Municipal Water 
District of Orange County. She was our eyes and ears in 
Washington and Sacramento. 

I want you all to realize the importance of Mary 
Jane's selection as Chair of ACWA ' s Environmental Committee. 
She has an innate ability to pull all factions and positions 
together in a positive way to resolve complex, controversial 
issues. She is considered a pro in regulatory negotiations. 
She was a perfect choice. 

Her leadership brought together people from the 



16 

California-Oregon border, to the deserts of Blythe, to work 
together to provide better quality water to the people of this 
area . 

Mary Jane left a highly successful career in the 
water industry to do public service and put her talents to work 
here in the State of California. She is probably the most 
knowledgeable water resource public member the state has ever 
had in the position. And believe me, at this time more than 
ever, we must have an experienced person to lead us in resolving 
our difficult water issues in this great state. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Next, please. 

MS. GREBBIEN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, it's an honor to be here today to testify in support 
of Ms. Forster's nomination to the State Water Resources Control 
Board. 

My name's Virginia Grebbien, and I'm the Assistant 
General Manager at the West Basin Municipal Water District and 
the Central Basin Municipal Water District. These two water 
districts are located in Los Angeles County and are member 
agencies of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 
California. 

We have currently under design and construction the 
largest water recycling program in the United States. These 
projects, combined with our water conservation, groundwater 
management, and desalination project, will reduce our need for 
imported water by over 100,000 acre feet annually. 



17 

These projects have multiple benefits to Southern 
California. They provide drought-proofing. They provide lower 
cost of water to industry, providing them an incentive to stay. 
There's environmental protection; we're reducing discharges to 
the Santa Monica Bay. It creates new jobs, both temporary 
construction jobs and permanent jobs, and it assists in the 
statewide water solution by reducing the use of imported water 
and significantly helping in protecting the fish and wildlife 
resources in Northern California. 

The Districts' water recycling programs are 
ambitious, and required committed individuals and agencies to 
bring them to fruition, people such as Mary Jane. 

I can't claim two decades of knowledge of Mary Jane. 
I first met her back in 1988, when she was a member of the San 
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. I had just started 
working for the Metropolitan Water District and needed to 
educate myself about water recycling and conservation. Several 
people indicated I should speak with Mary Jane. I met her and 
was literally bombarded with information. 

Most importantly, however, I walked away from that 
meeting with the knowledge that here was an individual who 
believed in conservation and reclamation and was committed to a 
process to increase resource management activities, not only in 
her region, but throughout the state. 

In my position with Metropolitan, I was responsible 
for facilitating the development of recycled water in Southern 
California. A good portion of my efforts concentrated on 
assisting local agencies with regulatory and institutional 



18 

issues impeding our water recycling project. Numerous times, 
Mary Jane worked directly with me to provide agencies a solution 
to the regulatory and institutional issues. Her assistance 
caused recycled water projects to be developed. 

Similarly, Mary Jane has been an invaluable resource 
to me at the West Basin Municipal Water District to our water 
recycling project. She has assisted our District with 
navigating the state law interest loan process, our successful 
efforts to secure federal grant funding, with the environmental 
community to generate support for our water recycling projects, 
and with our NPDES and other permit requirements, and most 
importantly, our recycled water marketing activities with the 
local business community. 

The West Basin water recycling project will be 
delivering recycled water for irrigation and industrial purposes 
in December of this year, and Mary Jane is a part of the team 
which has made this project a success. 

I believe Mary Jane will be an outstanding member of 
the State Water Resources Control Board. She has a broad 
understanding of federal, state, and local water issues, and has 
demonstrated a long-term commitment to water resource management 
activities . 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have a question. 

So far, the witnesses in support — and I didn't get 
here in the beginning — seem to be very impressive, but your 



19 

testimony doesn't square with parts of the record. I thought 
I'd ask you about it. 

MS. GREBBIEN: Sure. 

SENATOR PETRIS: First of all, she is described as 
not only a member of this Board, but a leading member who takes 
the lead, such as in recycling. I know that up north, she's had 
some good commendations from the local water district where I 
live. 

And yet, we have in the record a lack of enforcement 
of the statutes by that Board that was so bad that we rejected 
the last nominee who served on the Board during the time of 
this default in enforcement of the law. 

The Auditor General of the state last year --no, a 
few years back, during that period in question also said they 
just aren't enforcing the law and severely reprehended them. 
The FBI withdrew them from a list of hazardous enforcement 
bodies because they weren't doing any enforcing. 

And now, everybody says it's a great Board, and she's 
the star of the Board. It doesn't add up. 

I know there's opponents here who probably will 
enlighten us with a little more detail, but I wondered if the 
proponents were aware of this contradiction in the record? Are 
you? 

MS. GREBBIEN: I'm aware of the apparent 
contradiction . 

All I can say is that when I worked with Mary Jane in 
my former capacity at the Metropolitan Water District, when she 
was a member of the San Diego Regional Board, there was several 



20 

instances where recycled water projects were stuck, for lack of 
a better word, because there was a regulatory issue, or because 
two people needed to talk to each other and they weren ' t 
talking, or because there was a perception that an up and coming 
regulation would prevent a project. 

And in each time, I was able, with Mary Jane's 
assistance, to sit down with those people and facilitate a 
solution. 

Also, there were a couple of times where, you know, 
in the Section 13551 of the Water Code that says water recycling 
shall be used if it can be deemed it's a reasonable place to use 
potable water for special purposes, and that law was adequately 
explained. 

So, I can only speak from my own experience. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, you're just talking about the 
recycling aspect of it. 

MS. GREBBIEN: I'm talking about water resource 
management activities and a dedication to that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you familiar with the report of 
the Auditor General of the state? 

MS. GREBBIEN: No, I am not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, they say they just have not 
been enforcing the law. Not you, the Board, which included this 
nominee. That's pretty heavy coming from that level. They do a 
very thorough study. They checked the record; they talked to 
people. 

And then you have the FBI, which kind of shocked me, 
because I didn't know they had any role in this, but I guess 



21 

their role is to help enforce the federal part of these statues 
relating to hazardous problems, and they took the whole Board, 
whole agency, off the list. They said, "Hey, you're not even 
enforcing the law, so we're not going to include you in this 
official category." That's another shocker. 

Now, you can't have it both ways. They've either 
been a splendid Board, and she's been one of the stars, or the 
reporting agencies are correct. I don't see how we come out 
anywhere in between. 

But since your experience is limited to recycling, 
which apparently gives her a big plus, I guess I shouldn't be 
going into this any further. Perhaps other persons coming 
forward in her support can elaborate on that for me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MS. GREBBIEN: Thank you. 

MR. GASTON: Chairman Lockyer, Members of the 
Committee, my name is John Gaston. I'm a consulting engineer 
from Oakland, California. 

I've prepared some remarks here which I'll leave with 
you, but in the interests of time, let me just cut to the 
experience that I've had with Mary Jane. 

I've dealt with Mary Jane for probably almost as long 
as Gordon has, primarily in her capacity as a member of the 
National Drinking Water Advisory Council, of which I am still 
the Chairman. In that, she has shown a great energy, and very 
good leadership as it results in developing drinking water 
quality standards in the protection of the public health. 

She's also worked with the other association that I'm 



22 

associated with, the American Waterworks Association, in 
developing an annual report for all water utilities, and I've 
appended a copy of the annual report for the East Bay Municipal 
Utility District, which is my home water utility. The format 
and the content of this comes directly as a result of work that 
Mary Jane did when she was with the Municipal Water District in 
Orange County. 

I won't belabor the additional work. I have not had 
much to do with her association with the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board, other than to seek her support for Bay/Delta 
drinking water quality standards. I have had a considerable 
amount of experience with her background in dealing with the EPA 
and in dealing with the Congressional Members on both 
legislation and on drinking water quality regulations. 

In my 30-plus years — and Senator Ayala, I started 
off as a surveyor on the California Aqueduct, and I ' d be happy 
to answer those questions you had -- I have met very few people 
that are as qualified as Mary Jane, and bringing as much energy 
and enthusiasm to the process. 

I strongly urge that you support her nomination, not 
only here, but also on the Floor of the Senate. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The rule controlling disinfection 
by-products sounds like something that at least three of us 
understand as the rule against perpetuities. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I won't ask you to explain it. 

MR. GASTON: Oh, I could go on for hours. 



23 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Next. 

MS. TRAGER: Thank you, Mr. chairman, Members of the 
Committee. 

My name is Susan Trager. I'm a lawyer from Orange 
County in Irvine. I'm here to speak in support of Ms. Forster. 

I'd like to say that I have had occasion to represent 
some of the people who have been regulated by Mary Jane Forster 
and her Board in San Diego. And they are dairymen on the San 
Luis Rey River. They think she is very tough. They respect her 
for what she did. One of them is actually closing his 
operations on the San Luis Rey River and moving to the Central 
Valley because the regulatory climate in San Diego for dairies 
is very hard right now, and, I would think, probably in part 
because of the Regional Board's activities. 

There was an earlier speaker, Ms. Johnson, who said 
that she would bring to the State Board a different palette of 
skills. And I would say that the skill that I'm most familiar 
with for Mary Jane Forster is that she's able to elicit from 
people who are warring parties that wonderful thing of getting 
them to talk about what they're really there for: the 
unspeakable, the unsayable. 

And that ' s exactly what the State Board needs right 
now. It needs somebody to bring this stuff out so that there 
can be consensus reached, and a discussion on the real issues to 
come to an honorable solution. 

I would recommend highly this woman for that 
position, and I appreciate your time. 



24 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Have we concluded hearing from anyone who wishes to 
comment in support? 

Such being the case, we'll start with opposition, and 
Senator Hayden, did you wish to speak? 

SENATOR HAYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

There are others more expert or detailed than I who 
will testify, and you have my letter. 

My particular concern, if I can state it at the 
outset and then go into a few of the details, is that regardless 
of other qualifications of the nominee in question, the issue is 
whether she should be the public member of this agency. 

This is an agency that historically served the 
function of developing the plumbing for the State of California 
50 years ago, and really needs a modern look in terms of what we 
now know about the decline of fisheries, the poisoning of 
groundwater, the pollution of the oceans, and so on. 

And as you know, I've tried to carry legislation to 
amend the nature of the Board, but one of the few opportunities 
to bring a modern, environmental perspective to this agency is 
the slot reserved for the public seat, for the public member. 
And that, I think, should be kept in mind when we consider this 
appointment . 

We have a record here on the State Board and on the 
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and you have the 
back and forth between some of the people in San Diego and 
Ms. Forster's response. Let me go through two or three of the 
items to raise certain questions that I hope get answered here. 



25 

In 1987, 1991, 1992, and in 1993, there were four 
episodes that I think are of some importance. In the first one 
in 1987, there was a request for a dairy expansion, a very 
interesting case in which the dairy in question was out of 
compliance with current waste discharge requirements and was 
thought to be polluting the water. And in a statement that 
sparked some controversy, Ms. Forster responded, quote, "In 
agricultural areas, people should give their children bottled 
water," close quote. 

That sparked my interest in looking at her 
explanation of the statement, because we all know that 
statements are important to place in context. And so, I looked 
at her letter to you in which she says that it ' s a 
"misunderstood statement taken out of context by the media . " 
And then she states that in fact, the dairy in question did not 
expand, and so on, and because of that experience, she learned a 
lot. 

What she doesn't point out, and I think this is an 
issue of credibility of extremely important nature for a public 
member, is that while it is true the dairy in question did not 
expand, she voted for the expansion and it was reversed on 
appeal. That's not mentioned in her account of the affair. 

Number two, the 1991 review by the Environmental 
Health Coalition, and these folk will testify, I think, in a few 
moments, according to their argument, and I haven't checked 
their numbers as carefully as I would wish, but you might want 
to ask them, they say that there were 222 known violations by 
dischargers around San Diego Bay in which the Regional Board 



26 

imposed only two fines. 

If you look at Ms. Forster's response to this, it's 
simply not clear. Again, there's a credibility issue. She 
simply says, "The Regional Board cannot verify . . . the count of 
221 violations," and goes on to make some detailed references, 
none of which speak directly to the issue of whether or not the 
agency, with her participation, was negligent or lenient in 
terms of its philosophy of imposing penalties. 

The third case, which Senator Petris has raised, is 
about the FBI matter in 1992. The FBI letter — well, I should 
point out, if I might just go back, you might also look. Ms. 
Forster has indicated that she supported a lot of penalties, and 
there is an Attachment One in her record that you might look at. 

Going through this list of 37 penalties, one of them 
I notice is in the City of San Diego, a penalty of $830,000. 
I'm not sure if her testimony today is that she voted for that 
or was present on the Board. I would like to see that in the 
record. 

There are several others, and I would indicate items 
5, 6, 7, 10, and 19, which are listed as examples of the Board 
imposing penalties, where I think the penalties were either 
suspended or substantially reduced to token levels. 

Now, if I might go back to the FBI issue, the FBI 
letter, which you have somewhere, and I've read several times 
but can't seem to find it now, starts out — it's just a 
paragraph long — it starts out: "Pursuant to our previous 
conversation." I'm sorry, "Pursuant to our previous 
discussion," and it's addressed to the Executive Director of the 



27 

board. 

So, it implies that there has been ongoing 
communication between the FBI and the responsible parties at the 
Board over the fact that the Board doesn't seem to want to 
participate in this strike force on hazardous waste, because the 
letter then goes on to say you're off the board because you 
don't want to make a positive contribution. 

The response to this, again, suggests to me that 
there is a credibility problem here. If I might, Ms. Forster ' s 
response is that, quote: 

"Problems with staff participation in the 

strike force were never made known to the 

Board . " 

I hope that you will ask her on the record if that is 
so, and that Board records be made known to us to see if, in 
fact, the staff of this agency never mentioned to the Board that 
they were in discussion with the FBI, and that the FBI had, in 
effect, dis-invited them from this strike force. That would be 
surprising to me, but it may be in the nature of bureaucracy 
that staff are removed from task forces by the FBI without their 
boards ever knowing that any such thing has occurred. In any 
event, I think now is the time to clarify that record. 

And finally, in July of last year, in a matter that's 
already been mentioned, the State Board, while she served on it, 
decided not to enforce water quality standards in the Delta. 
This had the effect of letting the California Department of 
Water Resources off the hook for some 200-300 separate 
violations of current Bay/Delta standards. 



28 

Her response there is that she came to the 
conclusion, after extensive research on fishery decline, that no 
net loss, quote/unquote, "'no net loss' is not the proper term" 
for resolution of these issues. It's unclear whether that means 
she opposes as a policy no net loss, but the statement is, "'no 
net loss' is not the proper term." And therefore, that 
justifies the position with regard to enforcement of the Delta 
standards . 

However, if you look at the record, and perhaps this 
quote is again out of context, I simply don't know, but if you 
look at the record, her actual statement at the hearing is a 
very, very strong statement, emotional statement, vociferous 
statement against moving in the direction of no net loss of 
striped bass. That appears -- forgive me. I know I'm taking 
everybody's time, but I want to get the quote correct -- this is 
from August 18th, 1991, and this is not the mild statement you 
have in the record that she thinks no net loss is a bad term. 
She says, quote: 

"It'll be worse than in '86, when everyone 
went nuts over conservation. If you do 
fish, the scales are already in balance. 
You don't use as a goal one that would 
provide striped bass protection that would 
result in no further decline of that 
fishery. You can't say that. They 
shouldn't go back. Who knows why the fish 
died back then? I'm afraid the way it is 
going, this goal isn't good; no net loss 



29 

isn' t good. " 

So here, she's not referring to no net loss as a 
term, but as a policy: 

"... the goal isn't good; no net loss 

isn't good. They've got to keep focusing 

on balance, that no decline of striped 

bass goal puts it all back into the Delta 

and we ' re trapped . " 

On credibility grounds alone, I would ask you to 
examine closely the discrepancies between what was actually said 
at the time, the votes that were actually made at the time, the 
charges of the environmentalists, the response of Ms. Forster, 
and I think that you would agree that there is a credibility 
problem and an environmental problem that should not be there 
when we have the opportunity to appoint a member who truly 
represents the public. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, you're welcome to stay 
while we ask for comment, if you wish. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: I ' d be happy to. I'm in Toxics 
Committee where the pesticide bill is being debated. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Go ahead, and I'll make sure we 
follow up on that. 

SENATOR HAYDEN: All right, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It may be appropriate time, 
Ms. Forster, if you wouldn't mind, to -- 

MS. FORSTER: No. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — go through those five areas of 



30 

discussion. 

I know you took notes . 

MS. FORSTER: I took notes. 

The Van Tol Dairy. The Van Tol Dairy is in the 
Ramona area. When that came before the Regional Board, it was 
also — it was a father and a son operation. There was also a 
housing tract planned, and a lot of the locals wanted the dairy 
to expand. 

Down gradient of and around some of the areas, there 
were a lot of nitrates in people's wells. It was the turkey 
capital of the world. There were turkey and chicken ranches 
there historically for many, many, many years. 

There was one woman who came with her four children 
named Carol, and she was so beside herself because of the 
nitrates in her well. 

So, the Ramona Water District manager was there, and 
a lot of people in Ramona have imported water. So we tried to 
discover whether Carol could get some water, a distribution 
service to her home, and it was impossible. 

The reason we voted for the dairy, and we put so many 
regulations on the diary, was, they were going to do amazing 
work. In fact, the County of San Diego — this is our formal 
record from the Regional Board -- Tom Esher of the County of San 
Diego Department of Agriculture said no dairy in the state ever 
had to do some of the things that this Regional Board is 
requiring the Van Tol Dairy to do. They had to do -- we're 
going through whether they should do CEQA EIR, and the County 
kept saying no, they don't have to do that. 



31 

They didn't expand because they didn't have the money 
to expand. The Board voted for its expansion if they did all 
the things they were supposed to do, but it didn't help Carol 
Close, because she was -- we had engineers, we had people trying 
to find out what to do. 

So, in an emotional thing, she had these four little 
children. I have four children. I said, "Carol, I called EPA." 
I said, "What's your health advisory?" I asked the Department 
of Health. They said, where there is no alternative water 
supply, and if they have high nitrates, then young children -- 
they're called the sensitive population, under five -- should 
drink bottled water. That was from me to Carol. 

And it got picked up, and it was in the Tribune . And 
it sounds terrible, but the verbal expression never comes out 
good in these records . 

And that was one of the reasons that, when I met John 
Gaston, I said I'd like to serve on that board that does 
drinking water standards, because I want to find out what we're 
doing in this nation. And I did. He pointed me to the resource 
committee that was doing the groundwater protection strategy for 
the United States . 

So, it was a terrible situation. I wish I hadn't 
said it. I've learned about verbal versus written, and that's 
my answer on that. 

If we want to go down to the 1991 violations, I have 
the record of all the violations here. I've gone over this so 
many times. I've asked at the Regional Board to go over it with 
me. 



32 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess, just before you move on 
to the next point, just to keep the timetable straight, the 
dairy expansion was a matter that came up in '87? 

MS. FORSTER: I think yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's been suggested that the U.S. 
EPA Advisory Council on Drinking Water drafted 86 amendments. 

MS. FORSTER: No, I'll explain that, Senator, and I 
can understand the confusion. 

When you talk about federal laws, you use the year, 
because when you're working on regulations, you have to identify 
the year of the regulations you're working on. So, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act was called the Safe Drinking Water Act of 
1986. 

Now, I started to seek appointment to that in the 
late '80s. So now we have the new — the Senate has the Safe 
Drinking Water Act of 1994. So, it wasn't that the issue that I 
was talking about something that I didn't do any — it's the 
title. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: These were regs? 

MS. FORSTER: The regs and the title, and that's 
understandably confusing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And then you were about to go on 
to the '91 — 

MS. FORSTER: On the '91, going over the violations, 
and then I went over the most recent ones . 

To the best of my knowledge, there were only two 
violations brought before the State Board. The administrative 
procedures policy gives you guidelines on how to do regulations. 



33 

And for these, you have the A, B, C, D, level. The staff does 
most of the levels administratively, and they only get to the 
Regional Board when there's somebody who's so recalcitrant and 
doing a discharge that is so noxious that they have to bring it 
before the Board for a hearing. 

Now, I'm not wiping clean the slate that there's not 
a flood of problems in San Diego Bay. I've been working real 
hard on trying to figure out the actions that need to be done to 
clean up San Diego Bay. 

But for the record for this issue, there was only two 
brought before the Board. Many of them were for -- were number 
A, failure to submit a monitoring report, so they get a 
letter, they get a phone call. Staff takes care of a lot of 
these issues without engaging the Board. 

The — one of them, and this is from our staff and 
from me going through, was a Navy graving dock, where the 108 -- 
this is my count. See, they go into the record. This wasn't in 
our Board agenda. You have to go through all the records and 
count violations. 

One hundred and eight were a gravy -- when they take 
a big ship out to fix it, the water falls off. They put it in 
the graving dock, and the water pours down. That water was 
supposed to be better than the Bay water, which would be 
impossible because it's the Bay, you know. Pull it up, it's the 
same water going down. So, staff is trying to look at that 
issue and revisit that permit. 

I put together a little blue packet I didn't hand you 
out. One, to highlight this issue, and two, to show you all of 



34 

the completed projects in the Bay, the ongoing actions on the 
Bay, and the proposed actions on the Bay. 

And I want to make one point, because I think this is 
critically important, that Regional Board takes the Bay so 
seriously, and have been so on the Port District, because the 
Port Direct runs the port tenants. Their budget since we got 
very involved in this issue has increased from $18,000 a year to 
$10.4 million just for environmental compliance. They used to 
have two environmental specialists; now they have eighteen. 
It's full court press to try to get a clean Bay. 

So, I have these for you if you would like them, and 
I brought them today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Sergeant there will distribute 
them. 

MS. FORSTER: I used to be a teacher. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've got yellow also? 

MS. FORSTER: This is the spelling test; this is the 
math test. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. FORSTER: Let's see, would you like to go the -- 
what's next — the 830,000, the enforcement. I have yellow for 
enforcement. 

The enforcement record is a hard one for a Regional 
Board member, because you do — you set penalties; you get in a 
very contentious hearing. You set penalties. And somewhere in 
the middle '80s, this availability — and the procedures for 
doing administrative civil liabilities is where you could set 
penalties — became a policy of the state. 



35 

We were setting several penalties, and then the 
public started to come in. And they would say, "You're 
penalizing the citizens of San Diego. We're the one that's 
going to have to pay all these penalties. We would like you to 
use that money locally. " 

I was one of the most aggressive leaders in the state 
to try to use money locally for environmental enhancement. On 
my yellow handout, I couldn't — I don't know how to go back to 
what penalties were suspended and what stayed, because 
sometimes, like the Whelan Dairy, the judge threw out over 
$100,000 of penalties. So, you do a penalty; sometimes you do 
the penalty and you say, "We will — we will forgive if you fast 
track. " 

Here's the yellow. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sergeant, we have some more paper. 

MS. FORSTER: So, I just, instead of going back to 
that record because I can't talk about all of those, I will say 
why the $830,000 is on there. That's because that was appealed 
to the State Board, and I voted to uphold that penalty. It 
started in discussion when I was there, and our Board upheld 
that penalty. So, either in one position or another, I 
supported that . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about the FBI strike force? 

MS. FORSTER: The FBI strike force. The FBI strike 
force is from the District Attorney's Office. To tell you the 
truth -- we're all under oath, aren't we? Well, let's pretend 
I 'm under oath. 

To tell you the truth, staff used to tell me, we 



36 

can't tell you what's going on with 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean nothing's been true up to 
right now? 

MS. FORSTER: Yes. 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. FORSTER: But this is such a critical issue. 
They were never allowed to tell us what they were working on in 
the task force. And I would say — we would every once in a -- 
so, the mode of operation was, the staff would work with the 
task force, the strike force. They would cooperate in any way 
they could. 

They didn ' t always — we didn ' t always have the 
manpower as when you look at the problems cited by the Auditor 
General report. This few staff can't be everywhere. So, they 
were supposed to access the records, help them, give them leads 
if they wanted leads, whatever they were supposed to do. So, 
they never really told us the problems they were having. 

But there's a very interesting differentiation 
between due process and the way law works for Californians and 
the task force. The task force in San Diego was focused on 
small business, criminal — criminal environmental violations. 
The Regional Board does not regulate small business. The 
Regional Board regulates waste water treatment plants who carry 
the regulations of small business. 

The Regional Board is a due process arena. If you 
are violating the law, you get — you go through the process, 
and you come before us . 

The strike force is more of a sting operation, and I 



37 

really don't know how they operate, because I was never shown 
how they operate . 

I do know that this raised our awareness big time. 
It's caused a lot of heartache for the local Regional Board, and 
we're bending over backwards to do whatever we're supposed to do 
and work cooperatively with that hazardous waste task force. 

Unfortunately, they're running out of money around 
the state, and I don't know what will happen to those task 
forces . 

Fortunately, we do regulate and try to give 
everybody due process, so it isn't like people who are polluting 
are going to fall between the cracks . 

Anything else here? Did you get the yellow sheet? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not yet. 

MS. FORSTER: The yellow sheet is just the City of 
San Diego's enforcement. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, I'm sorry, yes. 

MS. FORSTER: And if you go through this, this is 
interesting because you'll see different examples of how we 
tried to work on each action. Every one is unique. 

The first one, Pump Station 64, we had 44 separate 
tasks. If they would hurry up and fix that, they would be able 
to not have to pay part of their payment. All right, they did 
have to pay $11,391, and we made them pay that to the 
Penasquitos Lagoon to help them. 

Fiesta Island, we collected 11,000. 

The big spill, Thanksgiving Day spill, we assessed 
them a million dollars. The public came in, and the City 



begged, you know, "We're going to fix this," so we — through 
some mechanism, this is a long time ago, they did give us 
$200,000 and another 100,000 to the Penasquitos Lagoon. 

Then you see another one where they were fined on a 
spill for electrical failures, and the same pump station. We 
fined them 300,000 and gave 50,000 to the Penasquitos Lagoon. 

And I like this one, because Laura's going to come up 
here and say some things about me. One of the spills, we gave 
$25,000 to the Regional Board, which really is the state, and 
25,000 to the Environmental Health Coalition, which I think they 
used to make children's calendars. 

The last one, now this is a creative one. When the 
City and the state were — when the state and the U.S.A. were in 
the Consent Decree in San Diego against the City of San Diego, 
they had to pay $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury, but they're 
supposed to share half of that with the state. And we're trying 
to collect on that. 

But we have them -- and this didn't go away. I 
checked this today. They are spending $500,000 per year for 
five years on water conservation and retrofit. 

Enforcement is one of the toughest issues. There is 
a new guideline that San Francisco Regional Board has come out 
with that's like a cookbook. I used to beg for a cookbook, so 
everybody knew where they were on this . 

But I'm going to close my comments on this yellow 
sheet. The last page is a record from the June 9th meeting on 
the City of San Diego, where the Regional Board was going to 
assess the City of San Diego $2.5 million because they didn't 



39 

think they really did a good enough job in some of their tasks 
on cleanup the sludge at Fiesta Island. 

The legal counsel for the Sierra Club begged, and it 
says: "[I] ask you to cancel the fine against the City," I 
underlined these: 

"Your legal counsel will tell you that 

substantial compliance is a well 

recognized defense to administrative 

complaint action. Last [year], the Sierra 

Club was here asking for the fine, " 
and they did, after that, send a letter to the State Board 
asking us to look into the fine, look into what the City was 
doing. 

And then they go on later, they said they appealed to 
the State Board, but then they changed their position. And if 
you turn the page and you go to the bottom, they changed their 
position for the same reason that most responsible people who 
have to deal in these complex issues get a little bit of change 
of philosophy when they're trying to work to the resolution. 
They said: 

"... from our perspective, if you force 

the City to pay this fine, who will suffer 

by it? It will be the Sierra Club's 

members and the Metro rate payers who will 

be paying this fine. And why?" 
Why would these people be punished? For what reason? Because 
a few pieces of equipment were not in place? 

Well, that's how I'm going to end my story on 



40 

enforcement . 

I love that we're moving in a new direction. I love 
that the Sierra Club understands the complexity — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: New direction meaning watersheds? 

MS. FORSTER: No, enforcement. This is — yellow is 
my enforcement. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Got it. 

MS. FORSTER: Enforcement has been a thorny issue. 
It's a big issue. It has many menus. 

This is going to make it better for the regulators to 
be able to have something they can show to the public. This is 
what you're going to have to deal with. And for the public to 
know, to tell their people: hey, we missed that monitoring 
report; it's $250 a day every day until you get it in. 

So, those are my answers. No, one more. 

No net loss for striped bass. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Before you go on, could you 
explain what you think the new direction in enforcement is that 
you're hopeful and satisfied with? 

MS. FORSTER: It's going to — this has not been 
adopted by all the Regional Boards, but we just finished -- this 
week we have the final reports — we just finished an outreach 
problem where we brought Californians in to examine the 
performance and the programs of the State Water Board and the 
Regional Boards . And I sat on the program review for 
consistencies for Regional Boards, and they talked a lot about 
enforcement. 

And the San Francisco Regional Board has come up with 



41 

a document that's sort of like a framework and a road map for 
good enforcement policy. And I think, using a model like this, 
I'm not saying that it's the perfect model, and we'll have to 
see what Californians think, it's going to go a long way to 
addressing the debate on what's a fair penalty, why don't you do 
more penalties, why did you spend, how do you do creative 
penalties. And we've needed this for a long time. 

I'm supportive of it, and I even think some of my 
opposition here today is supportive of it, so it's success. 

There are successes on all of these issues. 

My good friend Marian Otsea, on the San Francisco 
Board, taught me about no net loss for fish. She had to sit on 
the Water Quality Triennial Review, or one of the processes a 
few years ago. And she used to say to me, "The answer is not no 
net loss, Mary Jane. It's habitat." 

And that's why I hated — that went away. After that 
-- I wasn't the only one that thought that that wasn't a good 
way to do the Delta. It's habitat. It's what's going on in 
that Delta that's causing all of these declines. 

And the reason that I talked about striped bass is, 
they're the predators. They're eating all the salmon smelts. 
So, we certainly have to look at what really happens with these 
fish species, and what's a pragmatic, reasonable way to try to 
get them on the heal, and to restore, and address these issues 
with a scientific background. 

SENATOR AYALA: Question on that point. 

Isn't the striped bass run off native fish? The 
striped bass are not a native fish in the Delta, is it? 



42 

MS. FORSTER: No. 

SENATOR AYALA: In other words, they're getting rid 
of the native fish. 

MS. FORSTER: We were supposed to be protecting the 
native fish through the Endangered Species. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's right, and the striped bass, 
which was imported — actually, it's illegal immigration; isn't 
it? 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. FORSTER: I heard you say that before. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No defense. 

MS. FORSTER: I do have a pink sheet on the Auditor 
General's report, but I don't know if you want to hear anything 
more from me. But I'll be glad to hand it out — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What did you say about that 
report? 

MS. FORSTER: I was the Chair, and so that — this 
was a very big issue during my Chairmanship. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

MS. FORSTER: So the focus — this was — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is only one sheet. 

MS. FORSTER: This is a short one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Must have been hard to respond to. 

MS. FORSTER: I have the report, but I knew you were 
going to get tried of my voice. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, no, you're doing fine . 

MS. FORSTER: The calendar year was '85-86. The 
focus was on our baseline work, self -monitoring reports, how 



43 

many compliance inspections we did, what our enforcement actions 
were, whether our water discharge requirements were up to date. 
We had a lot of backlog. 

The irony was , they were doing everything by hand . 
We didn't have enough resources. We were redirecting to a lot 
of new programs, and we had vacancies. 

So, what happened as a response to the Auditor 
General? We had a new program on monitoring. We got new micro 
computer capability. We started computerized tracking of our 
monitoring reports. We had a 90 percent success over the year 
before once we got to computer capability. 

We started a vigorous enforcement action. A lot of 
this can be done administratively by the staff. They got an 88 
percent response of collecting penalties from people who were 
late before they even had to come before the Board. And we did 
administrative civil liabilities against 15 dischargers of 
two million five hundred and twenty-five dollars, two hundred 
and thirty-nine cents [sic]. That's dollars: $2,535,239. I 
worry about my written record. 

The other activities that were going on this year -- 
that year, I was Chair of the 301 H waivers, where every big 
waste water treatment plant in the South Coast area were coming 
in, trying to get out of secondary treatment. It took 3,000 
staff hours to work on that. And I'm very proud to say that 
those plants stayed at secondary treatment. And I was very -- 
my body energy was very strong for that, because it's such a 
highly used recreational coastal area there. 

We were doing the new toxic pits programs , the 



44 

leaking landfills programs, the contaminated drinking wells, and 
we were implementing Proposition 65. 

So, I went — the next year, I spent eight weeks of 
my own time at the State Board, working on the budget, getting 
the resources, getting them money for the computers, and getting 
our vacancies filled so we'd never have to face that again. 

That's my pink sheet. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Got it. 

Perhaps what would be timely would be to ask for any 
others who wish to comment in opposition to the confirmation. 

MS. HUNTER: Good afternoon, Senators, Mr. Chairman. 
My name is Laura Hunter. I am from the San Diego Environmental 
Health Coalition. On the EHC, we are a 14-year old public 
interest, nonprofit, grassroots organization, dedicated to the 
elimination of illness and environmental degradation caused form 
the use of toxic chemicals in the home, the workplace, and the 
environment . 

Environmental Health Coalition is an active 
participant before our local Regional Board, and we have 
followed the actions of our Regional Board very closely for the 
past seven years . 

Based on an analysis of Ms. Forster's ten-year record 
on our Board, we are strongly opposed to the promotion and 
confirmation of Ms. Mary Jane Forster to the State Water 
Resources Control Board. 

I assure you, we do not do this lightly. Our 
opposition is very difficult. Ms. Forster is a very nice 
person, and big jerks are a lot easier to oppose. It is also 



45 

difficult because, as an organization that is 90 percent women 
staff, we strongly support and we want to see women promoted to 
positions of power within the government. So, we are not doing 
this in any kind of off-hand fashion. It is a very serious 
issue with us. 

There is too much at stake here to bow to what is 
comfortable and to what is easy, and it is Ms. Forster 's 
ten-year record on our local Regional Board, and her actions as 
a regulator, that are at issue here. 

This appointment is critically important. In the 
balance of your decision here today hangs the water quality of 
the entire state. If you confirm Ms. Forster to the State Water 
Board, that action will send a strong and very troubling message 
to the citizens of California that water quality is not a 
priority of this Senate. 

Although State Board members are appointed by the 
Governor, they work for you and are charged with enforcing the 
laws that you pass. Ms. Forster has not adequately enforced the 
law that she was charged with enforcing, and she has not acted 
to protect the resource that we trusted her to protect. 

You should be very concerned about her record. 
Although in our recent meeting, Ms. Forster asked that the past 
not be part of our assessment of her candidacy, we have no 
choice. Past performance is the best indicator we have of what 
future performance is going to be. We felt that it was very 
important that you knew her record as well as do so that you 
have full information to determine if this is the kind of 
decision and policy maker that you want to see on the State 



46 

Board, controlling water quality in your district. 

You will find that during the time Ms. Forster has 
been on the Regional Board, the decisions they have made are 
nonprotective and inappropriate. Enforcement has been too often 
nonexistent. You don't even have to take our word for it. As 
was mentioned before, the 1987 Auditor General's report, 
everybody agreed. The Executive Officer of the Regional Board, 
the Secretary of the Environmental Affairs -- I'm sorry, I had 
these to hand out. This is the summary of the findings. I 
believe you have it already. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, we do. 

MS. HUNTER: The Secretary of Environmental Affairs, 
the Chairman of the State Board, all agreed that the Regional 
Board's cooperative approach to compliance is not working, and 
the Regional Board was told to increase enforcement actions. 

Unfortunately, very little has changed, and I don't 
— I mean, this is a long time ago. It was 1987, but here 
you've got, you know, the articles from 1987, "State Gives 
Regional Board Low Grade," you know, blah, blah, blah, "Water 
Board Faulted." And then 1992, it's the same story. They're 
thrown off the FBI task force. 

One thing that's very concerned of us, and I was here 
a year ago — I don't know if you remember — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I remember. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I remember. 

MS. HUNTER: Okay. Well, Mr. Lockyer, you won't 
remember because you were not here . 

But at that time, Senator Petris, you asked me how 



47 

are things going since this Auditor General's report, so I 
followed up on that. And many of the criticisms of the Board at 
that time have still not been rectified. 

When Ms. Forster left the Board in July, '93, to go 
to the state, by staff estimate, 70-80 percent of permits had 
not yet been renewed that needed renewing. This is a problem 
that is not yet fixed. 

The FBI similarly recognized their lack of commitment 
to enforcement and, as was discussed before, removed them from 
that board. 

Our own review of self -monitoring and compliance 
records revealed a significant lack of enforcement. Now, I want 
to clarify one thing, and I went over those -- we had 
double-checked our records three times. We only counted 37 of 
those Navy graving violations, not a hundred, so they were not 
the bulk of the violations that we found. 

Two fines were imposed. One percent enforcement is 
not adequate, and it sends a message to dischargers that 
pollution pays and the risk of getting caught is very, very low. 

I had another thing I wanted to say, and I'll think 
of it in a minute. I can't remember. 

Here are some more of the more troubling actions of 
Ms. Forster during her ten years on the Regional Board. She 
voted to leave DCE in drinking water groundwater basin 80 times 
higher than the Title 22 standards, even though both the 
consultants for the discharger and her own staff stated that 
more clean-up was indeed possible. Ignoring the advice of her 
own attorney, Ms. Forster' s vote showed that she has a greater 



48 

sensitivity to polluter's needs, the polluter's needs to borrow 
money and sell contaminated land, than those of the general 
public that may rely on that drinking water in the future. 

It is also interesting to note that when we appealed 
this decision, no sitting Regional Board member felt strongly 
enough to come to Sacramento and defend that decision which 
Ms. Forster had been so active in. 

She also voted to issue proper permits that did not 
EPA requirement — meet EPA requirements for chronic toxicity 
standards. And the discussion about the reclaiming of recycled 
water was interesting. I think we all want reclaimed water, but 
not at any cost. And we have to be very careful about how far 
we degrade the water quality standards to allow for this water 
reclamation to happen. 

For those of you that aren't used to this lingo, 
chronic toxicity measurements, it's the measure of how much a 
discharge kills living things in the water. And what was a big 
concern regarding the Eastern Municipal Water District permit 
was that they were not going to require chronic toxicity, even 
though Eastern testified they probably could made the standard. 
So, I'm not even sure why they weren't asking for it. But this 
was supposed to be a live stream discharge, so it didn't make 
any sense at all. 

Her insistence on violating EPA rules wasted a 
thousand staff hours in pursuing this. Eventually, in an 
unprecedented move, EPA had to come in, take over the permit 
until they finally passed a legal permit and it wasted months 
and months of our time. 



49 

She voted to expand the Van Tol Dairy, and you're 
going to hear more about that in a minute. 

She voted to let the San Onofre Power Plant off the 
hook for massive damage to the marine environment. This vote 
was against staff recommendation, and it was also against 
conclusions by a very exhaustive, 15-year, $48 million study 
that the Marine Review Committee, convened by the Coastal 
Commission, did. This case was settled by a lawsuit, resulting 
in Southern California Ed. paying over $30 million to mitigate 
impacts which the Regional Board wouldn't even admit. These 
impacts included: 21-57 tons of fish destroyed by the intake, 
and 4 billion eggs and larvae, and nearly 20 percent of water 
quality — clarity being reduced. 

She voted against making the City of San Diego do an 
independent assessment on what caused the break in the Point 
Loma outfall which closed their beaches for four months . She 
also made a motion to assess no fines. You remember the famous 
sound bite for San Diego at the time: Where the affluent meet 
the effluent. It was not a high point in our City's economic 
and tourist history. 

Both actions were against staff recommendation. In 
this case, she followed the advice of the City's attorney, and 
that's even in her response to the fact sheet, she says: well, 
the City's attorney said we didn't have jurisdiction. 

What she left out of the response is, her own 
attorney said she absolutely, in no uncertain terms, did have 
jurisdiction to require that report. 

It took then-Assemblyman Peace to write legislation 



50 

to undo that decision. That is a waste of our time and our 
money. That is the job the Regional Board is supposed to do for 
you. You should not have to come back in and write more laws to 
undo decisions that your own Regional Board is making. 

This entire record cannot be ignored. Her many 
friends that have spoken today are indeed impressive, but 
there's one thing missing. They have not been living with the 
results of her decisions the way that we have. If you look at 
our list of supporters, it is admittedly shorter, but there's a 
lot more groups that have members in the region where 
Ms. Forster has been directing water quality for ten years. 

The grassroots San Diego groups alone include over 
24,000 residents of San Diego County that protest her 
appointment, and we're the ones — we are the ones, not the 
water districts in Northern California; it's we in San Diego -- 
that have had a direct exposure to the results of her decisions. 
The results are that our water quality is deteriorating. 

What has been the cost of these nonprotective 
decisions? San Diego is a dry, arid area with a very fragile 
aqua system and only a few groundwater drinking basins which we 
must guard zealously. I included facts about number of beach 
closures . 

There's only one clarification I want to be sure that 
you -- that we make, is that we had in 1991, we had almost half 
of all of the beach closures in the entire state. And before 
you start down this track, they were not the majority related to 
the Tijuana sewage problem. 

The case of the City of San Diego, I think it's 



51 

interesting there's a fact sheet on that, and I will forward to 
reading that. But the Regional Board's lack of action relative 
to the City is legendary. To call the sewer system in San Diego 
a disaster is an understatement: 3,700 reported spills in 7 
years, from June, '83 to June, '90 resulted in 86 million 
gallons which went into our surface waters. In the last six 
months Ms. Forster sat on our Regional Board, there were 197 
reported sewage spills from the San Diego sewer system. 

I think what we know from this is, even though there 
were some fines that looked big, and then were reduced by 
millions of dollars, that the City was not hearing them. They 
were not paying attention, and they continued to violate their 
permit . 

I want to bring out some of the highlights of the 
Regional Board's inaction, and I also want to say that none of 
these are related to the whole secondary sewage issue, which, as 
Ms. Forster said, is under court order at this point. 

The outfall break, which caused those beaches to be 
closed, I talked about before. What is also interesting to us 
about this is that the EPA Inspector General report found that 
the City misused the funds for fixing the outfall pipe, and that 
the City did not maintain the sewer system. No surprise to us, 
who have been swimming in that sewage for a long as we have. 

They also found that the City had avoided hundreds of 
millions of dollars letting the sewer system fall into gross 
disrepair. And I would — that is part of my packet, and I hope 
you have a chance to look at the Auditor General ' s report . 

The City violated their permit 28 out of 60 months, 



52 

and they illegally discharged over 40,000 dry weight tons of 
sewage sludge into our ocean. The City avoided $18 million of 

costs by estimate of a State Board staff that's not my 

number that I made up — by using our dump -- using our ocean as 
an illegal sludge dump. The Regional Board knew of this for 
over a year before it acted. 

The EPA also issued a notice of violation against the 
industrial waste pretreatment program, which has fallen into a 
big disaster. 

I am trying to hurry up. 

Where was the Regional Board in all of this? This 
record is appalling, and Ms. Forster, unfortunately, should get 
much of the credit for it. 

We have worked with the Board for seven years , as I 
said. For the past four years, we have attended virtually every 
meeting or listened to the tape. 

The philosophy that she has articulated in these 
meetings should trouble you. Her philosophy is that Regional 
Boards should not fine public agencies, and that swimming and 
diving in the ocean may be negotiated away. 

I must believe that you do not share this view. She 
told divers in a November, '91 hearing that government 
regulators could not protect swimming in some ocean areas . And 
she said, if you want to do diving in some areas, the divers 
need to get the citizens together and decide that that's a good 
use for the ocean. 

Well, I'm very sorry; we did that. We got all the 
citizens together; it's called the Clean Water Act. And that is 



53 

exactly where she gets her authority. 

Ms. Forster does not clearly understand the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act, nor does she view it as the 
will of the people. 

These philosophies are carried out in a very 
troubling manner: lack of an action by the very agency charged 
with enforcing the law. In fact, the Regional Board's staff -- 
and this is a very critical point — has been chastised for 
trying to bring impending violations to the Board's attention. 
Staff inspectors that found violations have been demoted. At a 
March 15th, '93 hearing, she implied staff was suspicious and 
paranoid, and seemed to query their motives about regarding 
their actions, when staff was responsibly raising issues 
regarding adequacy of repairs of yet a different broken outfall 
in San Diego County and seeking direction. 

So, I have been sitting in those meetings for four 
years. There was a very clear message at that time from the 
Board to the staff: we are not interested in enforcement. 

I'm almost done, I'm sorry. 

On record are over 70 water specialists, sanitary 
districts have supported her confirmation. This begs the 
question: who will she represent on the State Board, the public 
member or the water districts? If she is appointed to the 
general public seat, the whole Board is thrown out of balance 
and will not function as it is supposed to. 

Her fact sheet is misleading, and I've pointed out 
some of the things earlier. We are very disturbed by many of 
the misrepresentations in this document. 



54 

She took credit for a fine. My understanding of how 
the City's appeal of that last fine for $830,000 is very 
different from what Ms. Forster says. I saw the letter that 
said the staff had dismissed and not chosen to hear that appeal 
because they failed to raise substantive issues. So, I guess we 
haven't — we don't know exactly what happened there. 

She claimed to her credit, and it says in the 
response, that she resolved the Tijuana sewage problem. That 
problem is in full pitched battle today as we speak. She claims 
to have cleaned up all major hazardous waste sites. None of 
that is true. 

No member — it also says, or she makes the comment 
that no member of the regulated community — no member of the 
regulated community would testify that the Board's actions were 
nonprotective . 

Well, I'm sure they weren't, because they got away 
with a whole lot, and that's the problem. 

EHC is joined by many groups in opposing 
Ms. Forster 's opinion [sic]. You have a list before you. I 
guess I won't go into that. 

In conclusion, I'd just like to say, as we have 
stated, we have no quarrel with the person of Ms. Forster. It 
is her record that matters, and it is her record that is 
untenable. She is too biased to served equitably on the Board. 

I pose the same question to you that I posed to 
Governor Wilson in our June 20th letter: why would you choose 
to promote to the powerful State Water Board a member of a 
Regional Board that has failed so significantly to protect its 



55 

own water quality? 

We implore you, Senators, to utilize your authority 
and your considerable influence to reject this appointment. 

I was also given today a statement from Citizens for 
a Better Environment, to ask that it be submitted into the 
record. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Certainly. 

MS. HUNTER: If I could just rebut on a couple of 
points. I don't know if you want me to do that later. I just 
had a couple clarifications on what I heard. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess now is the appropriate 
time. 

MS. HUNTER: Okay. 

One issue about the Port District, the additional 
point about that, that their budget for water quality and 
clean-up issues has gone from whatever to $10 million. 

We're also going to take a whole bunch of credit for 
that, because we — and Ms. Forster was not present the day that 
this was voted on, but one of our appeals that we had appealed 
to the State board that we won, unanimously, in fact, was that 
the Port District had to clean up. So, $6 million of that is 
directly attributable to the appeal of the Environmental Health 
Coalition to have to clean up that site, because the Pecos 
Terminal clean-up — I talked to the environmental manager and 
he said it was around $6 million. So, we have all been very 
involved in that. 

The Van Tol Dairy, there was also testimony that cow 
dung was flowing down the river into a drinking water reservoir, 



56 

and it's very troubling that the vote was to expand that dairy, 
and they were already far out of compliance. They had too many 
cows; they had stuff going into the river. And yet, they were 
even discussing the fact that they should allowed to expand. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Where was that? 

MS. HUNTER: That was in Ramona . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Is Ramona part of the City of San 
Diego? 

MS. HUNTER: It's in the County. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Who do you think should have 
responsibility for something like that? 

MS. HUNTER: Well, if it's a water quality issue, the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board should do that. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: It is also an issue before a local 
government before it gets to water quality. 

MS. HUNTER: Well, the surface waters are the 
jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and 
they had the permit that was being violated. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: How recently was that? 

MS. HUNTER: That was in 1987 and 1988. It was a 
hearing. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you. 

MS. HUNTER: The last point I'd like to make is that 
a cookbook for enforcement exists; it's the Porter-Cologne Act. 
And it tells you what enforcement is available, and what should 
be done. The State Auditor General's report, and I was there 
personally for the last four years, begging that enforcement be 
taken. 



57 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. Forster, did you want to 
respond to any? 

Let me start. There was the thought that your 
philosophy indicates opposition to fining public agencies. 

Do you regard that as a correct statement? 

MS. FORSTER: No. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess your vote on the statewide 
Board with respect to the San Diego matter that we discussed 
earlier would be indicative of a willingness to fine them. 

MS. FORSTER: Yeah. 

I'm going to make a statement, Senator Lockyer. I 
never debate Laura, because Laura brings a passion for a lot of 
issues . 

I could go through all of these, but I tried to 
highlight in some of my handouts some of these issues. 

A Regional Board member, there are nine of us. I 
certainly haven't been in, like, the leadership role for quite a 
few years . 

We listened very carefully to Laura. There were all 
kinds of advocacy groups in front of the — advocacy for certain 
positions in front of the Regional Board. Some of the things 
that — she talked about the two issues that I think are 
important to talk about. 

I really don't know how to talk about the violations 
around the Bay any more, because the Regional Board staff and I 
have gone through these records, too, and so I think we should 
not debate that and just say we're all working on the Bay. 



58 

The DCE in the groundwater, in Escondido, a 
manufacturing company had some kind of a spill of a solvent. 
They spent nearly $300-400,000 cleaning up the soil. The used a 
high vac system, which was the highest technology available. In 
vacuuming the soil, droplets of water made it to the 
groundwater. Woodward Clyde testified that there was one- 
thousandth of a teaspoon left in the groundwater. 

We put a monitoring program on that — that property. 
They couldn't drink the well water. There are ten wells they 
had to monitor. 

Just this week, they found a spike, and they're going 
to do a different kind of — maybe it was — did you know about 
that? 

MS. HUNTER: Uh-huh. 

MS. FORSTER: Okay. 

MS. HUNTER: There's a spike moving into the 
groundwater. 

MS. FORSTER: And they are now — under the order, 
they have to come back in and work on this. They're going to 
try to do an air system, where they're going to throw oxygen 
down into there and try to make the bio remediations, the bugs, 
work better. 

They're over $500,000 now. They're still under 
regulation. And the reason that, you know, that Laura appealed 
it to the State Board, and the Chair of the State Board said 
that the staff said that they didn't need to go. That's why 
nobody was there. 

And it is — I mean, these clean-ups, how clean is 



59 

clean, and how safe is safe, are very tough issues. 

So, that's still being cleaned up. 

Chronic toxicity, the State Board was following -- 
the Regional Board was following the State Board's rule on 
chronic toxicity. And we were in debate with EPA, and we have 
now reached an agreement on it. And so, that was a hard issue 
that we were going very heavy for, because the Marines wanted 
that water so bad. We were trying to find a way for a net 
environmental improvement. We were going to take waste water, 
put it into a dry stream, give the Marines a new supply of 
water, bank water in Fallbrook groundwater, they wanted it real 
bad. 

Acute toxicity, there's no question about. Chronic 
toxicity, we were working out a fair process with EPA. EPA ' s 
going to give that permit back to the Regional Board soon. 

San Onofre, most of the issue was handled by the 
California Coastal Commission. And there is a lot that -- and I 
don't remember all the details, but there is a lot of 
environmental mitigation that has to be done over San Onofre. 

Point Loma, they had hired the best group in the 
world, called Failure Analysis, to try to figure out why the 
outfall broke. They found there was no negligence. They fixed 
it in record-breaking time, and I have a newspaper here from San 
Diego. It's the largest, deepest outfall now in the world. 

Their attorney was leading me to believe that if we 
forced a report, and independent report, they weren't going to 
get their money from the insurers. It was — they were asking 
for $8 million. They borrowed $8 million from the state, and I 



60 

wanted the state to get back their $8 million, and I knew the 
report would be coming. 

We usually don't do independent analysis. We just 
tell people what they have to do to comply with the law. That 
was a tough issue. 

And I think beach closures, that's tough. The City's 
got to build a whole new waste water system. It's going to cost 
them $4 billion, and everytime they drag their feet and things 
don't happen, these spills happen. 

Let's see, I don't know what else. I think I'm sort 
of talked out. 

Like I said, I don't really like to debate Laura. I 
think Laura and I are on the same side as for interests, and I 
think we ' re going to work great in the future . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Ms. Hunter. 

MS. HUNTER: If I could just clarify one point. I 
haven't had to talk as much. 

EPA did say — I can understand why the consultant 
hired by the City might be inclined to say that there was no 
negligence, or the EPA did say there was negligence and wanted 
to take all their money back, because they have been negligent 
in not maintaining the sewer system. 

I think, you know, the medium is the message, or 
whatever. The City has yet, not yet, gotten the message that 
what they are doing in abusing their rights — no, their 
privileges; they don't have any rights to discharge into the 
ocean. They have a privilege. They have not yet gotten the 
message that we're not going to tolerate that. 



61 

And it is very bad down there. A surfer told me a 
friend of his was in our ocean last year. He had a sore on his 
arm. He pulled a worm out of his arm. 

This should not be something that you contact when 
you go swimming in the ocean. That's disgusting. And this is 
the kind of problem that we've got down there, and we've got to 
get it stopped. 

And the Regional Board has got to tell the City that 
they are not going to put up with all of these violations and 
all of this mismanagement any more, and they haven't told them, 
and that's our concern. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Other opposition? 

Maybe we better take a five-minute break. 
[Thereupon a brief recess was taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next witness. 

MS. CLOSE: My name is Carol Close, and I'm from 
Ramona, California. 

It's a coincidence that hot dogs and nitrates have 
been in the news recently. Hot dogs have nitrates — nitrites. 
But when you ingest nitrates, the acidity of your stomach 
changes the nitrates to nitrites. 

Epidemiologists are linking high rates of cancer and 
leukemia in children to nitrates in hot dogs. Mary Jane Forster 
and I, we also have a relationship over the issue of nitrates in 
groundwater . 

However, since 197 5, nitrites [sic] in hot dogs are 
within EPA, quote/unquote, "safe limits." In our valley, we 



62 

found out nitrate levels in our groundwater, which some of us 
use as our only potable source of water, are as high as eight 
times EPA safe levels for nitrates in drinking water. 

My most important point I want to make today is that 
groundwater is Southern California's only natural source of 
water. 

The reason why this should be of interest to all of 
you guys, all of you Senators — I don't mean to be — can you 
see your districts in here? Okay, it's an issue that's a 
problem in all of California, in your district, too. 

This is from the Nitrate in Drinking Water Report to 
the Legislature, State Water Resources Control Board, October, 
1988. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you have some sort of 
conviction or evidence as to Ms. Forster's disinterest or -- 

MS. CLOSE: Yes, I do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay. 

MS. CLOSE: That's the reason why I'm here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll stipulate to the fact that 
it's a problem now . 

MS. CLOSE: Okay. 

Mary Jane Forster has nothing to protect -- has done 
nothing to protect our groundwater in our valley, and she has 
done nothing to alert people of the threat to their health. I'm 
not a lobbyist, but I'm a common well owner in a small rural 
town where maybe hundreds and, who knows, thousands use well 
water as their only potable source of water. 

People are moving out to the country. They think, as 



63 

I did, that country living is clean and pure. They think that 
city pollutes — cities pollute. 

The water in our wells looks great and tastes good, 
but no one is responsible for testing wells. No one. Only 
wells with connections of five or more, like a trailer park, for 
instance, or a water district, are monitored for purity. 

When my well was drilled, San Diego County tested my 
well for bacteria only. My well water was, quote/unquote, 
"listed as safe for drinking." However, they didn't tell me 
anything about possible nitrate contamination. 

Besides being found in hot dogs, nitrates are found 
in fertilizer, and animal and human waste. The documented 
number one source of nitrate contamination in groundwater is 
municipal dumps. The number two source of nitrate 
contaminations are dairies and cattle feed lots. 

One cow is equal to 22 people in solid waste, and 17 
people in nitrates . 

Nitrates can kill a baby in as little as one day from 
drinking formula mixed with water. 

Should I wait for you, Mr. Lockyer? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Please go ahead. 

MS. CLOSE: There is, quote/unquote, "little margin 
of safety" for infants at a concentration of 10 milligrams per 
liter nitrates as nitrogen. 

As I mentioned before, some of our wells are 8 times 
this EPA limit, but we didn't know that. 

Also, studies in the U.S.S.R. showed oxygen 
deprivation in school-aged children. Numerous studies link high 



64 

rates of gastrointestinal and esophageal cancer in areas with 
drinking water high in nitrates. In laboratories, mice 
ingesting high nitrates developed cancer in every tissue and 
organ. 

I found out my well was contaminated while I as in 
the hospital with the birth of my son, Colin. That was six 
weeks before the hearing with Mary Jane. I found out my babies 
can die at 10 milligrams per liter. Our well was twice the EPA 
safe limit. 

Okay, the reason my well was tested was that a 
surrounding dairy, the Van Tol Dairy, was expanding, though 
existing dairy groundwater was seriously contaminated. 

The Board's initial report indicated the dairy was 
the likely source of the pollution, and the magnitude of the 
increased dairy operation had the clear potential to 
significantly increase nitrate and salt concentrations. 

There was serious negative public reaction. Numerous 
experts testified at the public hearing where Mary Jane was the 
Chairperson. The experts testified that the increased dairy 
operation would further impact the water. Even the head of the 
San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use wrote his 
concern over the impact of the expanded dairy operation. 

The Municipal Water District was not there at the 
meeting, as Mary Jane says. But he expressed his concerns 
afterwards about the well water because there was a dairy waste 
management policy that was going to be approved, and that's when 
he expressed it, his concern about the dairy operations. 

Testimony at the hearing showed the dairy did not 



65 

practice best management practices. In other words, they didn't 
have holding ponds for their discharge; they didn't scrape off 
the manure. It was a dairy feed lot with — they had a permit 
for 700 cows. They were over on their permit; they had 1200 
cows . 

Okay. Testimony showed they were over the number of 
limits they were supposed to have. Testimony also showed they 
were not in compliance with their waste discharge permits. 
Testimony showed the dairy discharged in violation of EPA laws 
to the tributaries to the municipal drinking water reservoirs of 
Lake Hodges and the San Vicente Dam, both reservoirs. 

At the hearing, we asked for an environmental impact 
report to find out the source of the nitrates. Mary Jane 
accused me of contaminating my well water with our septic 
system. 

We've since found out that it takes a density of not 
more than one house for every 8 acres to impact groundwater . 
Our house sits in the middle of hundreds of undeveloped acres. 
Plus, subsequent studies by the San Diego State University 
School of Public Health showed groundwater samples, and the hot 
spots are in the dump and dairy neighborhoods, with the highest 
levels directly at the dairies. 

Human septic systems — oops. I thought it was 
upside down for a second. 

Can you see it, Senator Ayala? 

SENATOR AYALA: I can see it. 

Can I ask you a question at this point? 

MS. CLOSE: Yes. 



66 

SENATOR AYALA: You're from Ramona? 

MS . CLOSE : Ramona . 

SENATOR AYALA: In San Diego County, of course. 

MS. CLOSE: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: How large of an underground basin do 
you have there? 

MS. CLOSE: We — we have a large underground basin. 
and it's a large — it's every — hundreds of people use as 
their only potable source, they use well water, and the wells 
are running very — you get a lot of water out of the wells. 

SENATOR AYALA: From the information I have, most of 
the water from the County is imported through the L.A. Water 
District — 

MS. CLOSE: Okay — 

SENATOR AYALA: — and there's no underground basin. 
It's salt water down there, so what are we talking about? 

MS. CLOSE: Well, what we're talking -- we're talking 
about some of the — the basin is this big and larger. And the 
water district itself has six wells that they use for Municipal 
Water District use. So that, that's why they expressed their 
concern. 

SENATOR AYALA: But you do have a small underground 
basin? 

MS. CLOSE: It's a large underground basin. 

SENATOR AYALA: My understanding is that almost 9 6 
percent of the water in the County is imported from the L.A. -- 

MS. CLOSE: That's true, but we also have — we do 
have enough well water that it's supplying people. It's not 



67 

dried up, as you would think, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: You do have a small supply, but — 

MS. CLOSE: Yeah, we sure do. 

SENATOR AYALA: — the vast portion of the water is 
imported water. 

MS. CLOSE: Right, but the well district, the 
district itself has six wells that they use for -- and they 
blend it with imported water. 

Okay. Human septic systems produce an insignificant 
amount of nitrates compared to a dairy. Remember, I was telling 
you one cow is equal to seventeen people in nitrates . 

The one dairy was producing more nitrates than the 
whole population of Ramona with their 1200 cows. 

Okay. Our town has a waste water treatment plant in 
the center of town, and municipal water service to the center of 
town. 

The outlying areas, on larger acreages, are not 
serviced by, you know, by the water district. 

I argued, you know, to Mary Jane that an 
environmental impact report would find the source of nitrates, 
and I was concerned for the health of the people in our town 
unknowingly drinking the water. Mary Jane Forster is on record 
in the tapes responding immediately that people in agricultural 
areas should drink bottled water. 

Mary Jane Forster, as the Board's Chairperson, did 
not uphold significant portions of the California Environmental 
Quality Assurance Act. She disregarded the expert testimony, 
the public's negative reactions and responses, and the health 



68 

and welfare of the majority of the people. She disregarded the 
violations of the dairies, their permits, their discharges to 
navigable streams, to public water supplies. 

Mary Jane decided that the private for-profit use of 
one resident outweighed the larger public good of the thousands 
of residents and the local water district itself, which uses 
well water for household and agricultural use. By allowing the 
dairy to expand, she wrote off the whole basin as not worth 
protecting. 

Both law and policy state that the prime purpose of a 
Regional Water Quality Control Board member is to preserve and 
protect existing water supplies. A Regional Water Quality 
Control Board member should be committed to nondegradation of 
existing groundwater sources . And groundwater is Southern 
California's only natural source of water. 

Mary Jane Forster, as Chairperson, erred by allowing 
the dairy expansion without further study, as the dairy was the 
most likely source of the pollution. She failed to adhere to 
the Regional Water Quality Control Board's own policies and 
procedures. She didn't uphold significant portions of the 
California Environmental Quality Assurance Act, and she opened 
the door to further degradation of the quality of water in our 
valley. 

Afterwards, in the San Diego Union , Mary Jane said, 
quote/unquote: "The environmental impact report is not required 
because the Van Tol Dairy is not specifically responsible for 
the pollution." She said, "The land is zoned for agriculture. 
The Dairy also has its rights." She said, "It is a beautifully 



69 

operated dairy, and public opinion favors a new dairy over a 
subdivision. " 

She also said, "We've never gone through an 
environmental review process on the Regional Board, and the 
Board lacks sufficient staffing to administer such a study." 
She also said in the San Diego Reader that she was unaware that 
the dairy was out of compliance with its waste discharge 
permits, even though the fact was brought up at the meeting by 
staff. 

She also said in a Ramona Sentinel article that she 
was unaware that the dairy was in violation of the Regional 
Water Quality Control Board's waste discharge permits at the 
time of the hearing. 

The Board's initial report indicated the dairy was 
the most likely source of the pollution, and the final report 
was changed to say, quote/unquote: "Increased milk production 
outweighs the potential unavoidable adverse environmental 
affects . " 

Was Mary Jane's job to protect milk production at a 
time when there were government buy-out programs in the San 
Diego region? Farmers were paid to shoot their cows because of 
over production of milk, which also kept milk prices 
artificially high. 

I feel people's health and lives were at risk for 
unknowingly drinking that water. That far outweighs local milk 
production. 

Wasn't Mary Jane's job to protect groundwater and not 
milk production? What if a petroleum tank is leaking? Will 



70 

Mary Jane feel it's her responsibility to protect the petroleum 
industry? 

Mary Jane wrote a fact sheet in response to a letter 
of opposition, which a lot of people have heard today. In 
response to number two, she says: 

"In agriculture areas, people should give 

their children bottled water." 
She says, quote/unquote: 

"FACT: [It's a] Misunderstood statement 

taken out of context by the media." 

The truth is, she really did say it to me at the 
hearing in response to my concern about people ' s health drinking 
the water. You can listen to the tape. 

She said, fact: "Van Tol Dairy did not expand." The 
truth is, she approved it, but I appealed and won the appeal. 

She said, fact: 

"Van Tol Dairy in Ramona Valley was 

surrounded by poultry ranches; two million 

chickens, and earlier 300,000 large 

turkeys . Poultry ranches and increased 

housing on septic tanks caused very high 

nitrates in the groundwater." 
The truth is, no poultry ranches have ever been within a mile of 
my house, historically, any time whatever. The Regional Water 
Quality Control Board's initial report also clearly indicated 
the Van Tol Dairy was the most likely source. Poultry ranches 
are in covered facilities where the manure isn't leeched into 
the groundwater by rain. 



71 

In this area right here, all the "Cs" are chicken 
ranches. There is no groundwater contamination there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How far away is that? 

MS. CLOSE: That's about, like, you know, six miles. 
I would say seven miles . 

Okay. This right here is a municipal dump. It's 
actually up here, and it's leeching into this area. 

These are the dairies right here that are leeching 
through the stream beds. All the water is flowing through this, 
following the stream. 

This is the site of an old dairy that's no longer in 
existence, and this is also a site of an old dairy that's no 
longer in existence. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are all the little squares, 
hatch-marked squares, are those the chicken or turkey ranches? 

MS. CLOSE: These, the big ones right here — this 
one, and this one, and this one, and this one -- are the -- are 
the dairies. These, with the "Cs", are the chicken ranches. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about the orange or the tan? 

MS. CLOSE: The orange — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Further up. 

MS. CLOSE: Where? Excuse me? Up here? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. CLOSE: There's some chicken ranches right here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

MS. CLOSE: Yeah, that's true, there are chicken 
ranches there. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Where is the town center? 



72 

MS. CLOSE: The town center is right here, can you 
see? There's — right this part. And all the hatch-marks? 
Okay? 

Poultry ranches are in covered facilities where the 
manure is not leeched into the groundwater by the rain. Plus, 
manure is hauled away, unlike the dairies — unlike the dairy 
operations were, I should say. 

Also, the town wasn't built out densely enough in the 
outlying areas for septic tanks and systems to impact 
groundwater. The town center is serviced by sewers and a waste 
water treatment plant, and the highest nitrate levels are at the 
dairy. One cow is equal to 17 people in nitrates. The 1200 
cows were polluting more than the whole population of Ramona . 

She said also, fact: 

"A young mother concerned about the 

health of her children protested the 

expansion of the dairy. " 
I was a young mother seven years ago, 

"I was so disturbed about the lack of safe 

drinking water for her family that I 

pursued several alternatives, [that is], 

installing . . water. Nothing was 

available, therefore, I contacted US EPA. 
"Nitrate/Nitrite US EPA 11.32, page 

667 recommended [drinking (sic)] water 

where there is no alternative source." 

Okay, she's trying to make it sound like she tried to 
talk to everybody to help me. Here today, she testified that 



73 

the Ramona Municipal Water District Manager was not at the 
meeting; the fact is -- he was at the meeting. The fact is, he 
was not . 

She's trying to say that the engineers testifying 
there were trying to help me. The fact is, the engineers were 
on the side of the Van Tol Dairy, testifying to help the Van Tol 
Dairy go into operation. 

The truth is, she blurted it out to me as an opinion 
to drink bottled water when I was saying, "Well, what about my 
babies? What should we do?" 

Bottled water is not an adequate substitute water 
supply for affected groundwater users. By her voting for the 
expansion of the dairy, she effectively wrote off the basin as 
not worth protecting. 

She said, fact: 

"Because of this experience, I 

sought and was appointed to the US EPA 

National Drinking Water Advisory Council 

to help draft the 1986 amendments to the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (including 

Groundwater Protection Strategy for the 

Nation). (1990-1993)" 
The truth is, she never even heard me 'til one year after, 19 86 
and 1987. 

The truth is, Mary Jane is not telling the truth. 
Mary Jane, as Chairperson, had significant influence over the 
rest of the Board. She didn't care about the direct economic 
cost in the lost use of well water as a potable source of water, 



74 

and the price of importing water, which will run into thousands 
of dollars per household. She didn't care about the 
incalculable human and moral cost of our unknowing exposure of 
our infants and children and husbands and wives to water harmful 
to their health. 

She responded positively to one private for-profit 
use of one resident over the health and welfare of the majority 
of the people of the state. 

Mary Jane has many supporters from water districts, 
but there is not unanimous water district support all of her 
decisions. One decision was to try and take out groundwater 
monitoring from a dairy waste management policy; in other words, 
to stop testing well water at the dairies. This is on record to 
Don Maughn, Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board 
in October, 1988. Four water districts — Rancho California, 
Fallbrook, Camp Pendleton, and the Ramona Municipal Water 
District — were on record opposing her decision to take out 
groundwater monitoring of dairies and the dairy waste management 
policy. 

Also, the Indian reservations, also, their only 
potable source of water is well water. All Indian reservations 
in Southern California use only well water. And they also 
didn't agree with her decision. And I have letters to prove it. 
I have them here, if you guys want them for the record. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Ms. Close. 

I guess I'd like some response, please. I think it's 
impossible for us to re-try a specific case that was heard years 
ago, but with respect to the efforts you may have made, or 



75 

recommendation, to stop groundwater monitoring at dairy sites, 
could you provide some explanation or elaboration with respect 
to those issues? 

MS. FORSTER: I don't know anything about that, 
Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Doesn't ring a bell? 

MS. FORSTER: I don't remember that. I would like to 
see that and understand it. 

If the Van Tol Dairy people were here, you would see 
another side of what happened to the dairies in San Diego 
County. 

Obviously, Carol is a very compelling, wonderful 
advocate for doing something about groundwater. That's why I 
didn't think about what I was saying and said what I did to her 
about bottled water, because she's — it's an emotionally moving 
story. 

There were 125 dairies when I became Chairman of the 
Regional Board, and when I finished with all the regulation, 
there are 25 left in San Diego. 

If you could listen to the dairymen's side of how 
awful I made their lives, how I forced them to move out of San 
Diego, I think it would put a little bit of balance into this 
situation. 

They did have a holding pond. They were — I went 
out there with other Regional Board members and took a tour . I 
don't think it was a feeding lot. 

We did not do EIRs. Jose Hertado was in the audience 
somewhere, because he knew that my heart was breaking for Carol. 



76 

So, like all Regional Board issues, there are two 
sides. There are two sides. 

And all I can say is, I don't — I would never say no 
groundwater testing unless there's a whole part of the story I 
don't understand. 

They were prohibited from discharging out of their 
pond into any tributaries that would make it to Hodges 
Reservoir, which was several miles away. 

It was 1987, Senator, and I don't remember all the 
things, but I remember Carol very well. And I truly, when I 
went — and John Gaston will attest to this — when I went to 
Washington, D.C., the first thing I wanted to know is, what are 
we going to do about the nitrates in groundwater? She moved me . 
She moved me today the same way she moved me then. 

But I don't know what else to say. The dairies are 
gone because of our regulations. I don't know what else to say. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you tell us the reasoning or the 
grounds for the reversal of the dairy decision by the State 
Board? Why the State Board reversed the local board? 

MS. FORSTER: You know, I don't remember that that 
happened . 

After our hearing, the County of San Diego was in 
charge of the land use. They were making the determinations 
whether there was an EIR or not. There as no alternative for 
some of the well owners in the area. 

I talked to the consultant that did the Van Tol issue 
recently and said, "What happened to Van Tol?" He said, "Your 



77 

requirements were so hard and so expensive, they never 
expanded. " 

So, I don't — I wouldn't know. As a Regional Board 
member, I didn't always know what got appealed to the State 
Board and what they did on it . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I wonder if any of the prior 
witnesses could clarify that for us? 

The question is, there was a lot negative about the 
dairy in prior testimony as well as now. And then we were told 
that the State Board reversed the Regional Board. 

Why did they do that? Can you explain? 

MS. HUNTER: I haven't, like, read the transcript, 
and I'm not sure exactly why, and I'll find Carol and bring her 
back here. 

But I know it was overturned on a unanimous vote, so 
the decision of the Regional Board, which at that point was to 
not — to require no EIR — and this is from my conversations 
with Carol; as I say, I wasn't there -- and to, I think, allow a 
waiver of waste discharge requirements -- but again, I'll ask 
her — was overturned by the State Water Board. 

But it's my understanding that there still has not 
been an EIR because the Van Tol Dairy was not allowed to expand. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anyone else in the audience that 
may know the answer to Senator Petris ' s question? 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman, we might inquire if 
anyone here represents the San Diego Water Authority is present, 
so they can give us an idea of what these underground basins are 
doing in that area? The gentleman over here. 



78 

Can you give us the extent of the underground basins 
and the problems that the dairies have caused in that area? 

I was under the impression that, again, to be 
redundant, that very little water was generated locally. Most 
of it came in from the, you know, the Metropolitan Water 
District. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: "Again to be redundant" is 
redundant . 

Never mind. 

Sir, go ahead. 

MR. CLAY: Senator Lockyer, Members of the Committee, 
I'm Ben Clay, represent the San Diego County Water Authority. 

Yes, over 95 percent of our water is imported. 

To give you a little history of the Ramona area, 
there have always been a lot of problems associated with — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What percent? I'm sorry. 

MR. CLAY: Over 95 percent is imported from the 
Metropolitan Water District and the State Water Project, and 
from both either the Colorado River and/or the state system. 

There are problems in the Ramona area with the 
groundwater basin. You have a rural community that is -- one 
day will be a city with a lot of the septic tanks. You have 
dairies; you have the chicken ranches; you have a lot of the 
agricultural types of activities are going on out there. 

Recognizing that problem, we spent $18 million here 
just recently with the Ramona Water District to build a pipeline 
to Ramona to bring potable water to them, knowing that that 
groundwater basin, which is a small one — and I knew when I 



79 

heard you ask the questions, Senator Ayala, I was sitting there 
thinking, "Oh, my gosh, what is the size of that?" I don't have 
that number off the tip of my tongue to tell you what the size 
of that groundwater basin is, but it is not a large basin if you 
were to compare it with some of the other groundwater basins 
you'd find. 

San Diego County as a whole has very small numbers of 
groundwater basins. There's the Tijuana Basin, the San Pasquale 
Basin, which is small. The Tijuana one is obviously degradated 
with the intrusion of salt water and with problems from across 
the border. We have the San Luis Rey River, which is a fairly 
large one, but it also has problems with dairies and other 
agricultural interests that have polluted it over the years, and 
we're all in the process of trying to clean those basins up as 
we proceed. 

SENATOR AYALA: Of that five percent, what portion of 
it is contaminated with the nitrates? 

MR. CLAY: I can't answer that question, Senator. I 
don ' t know . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Peace, is Ramona in your 
district? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Do you want some information on 
Ramona? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just to know where it is. Is it 
north east? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, of San Diego? Yes, it would 
be, I would say, in a general sense. 

I had the distinct pleasure of serving Ramona from 



80 

1960 on for many, many years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Presley? Kelley's area? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: It's Kelley now. 

But Ramona is a place that would probably, back in 
the days when I was up there, and I went a great deal, was the 
type of town that they'd rather be left alone. A hell of a lot 
of people living in Ramona come from Schamoca, Pennsylvania and 
want to be ranchers, and like ranchers they want a horse, and a 
lariat, and a big hat. 

And, you know, wells and other things, and a little 
old cow dung doesn't bother them at all. In fact, that's almost 
a red badge of courage. They're Billy on the ranch. 

Well, ranches don't have a lot of facilities that you 
and I are used to living with. They don't, some of them, you 
know, have sewer connections, or water connections. 

And the town has grown despite itself, and it has in 
more recent years had an influx of people. And there is a very, 
very delightful housing development, golf course, country club 
in Ramona, and I'm sure that's on a water line and a sewer line 
as well; isn't it? 

Do you know? San Diego County Estates? 

MS. FORSTER: I don't know, Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: You don't know. Well, that's two 
things: nitrates and this. 

You're not following me. Be that as it may, I met 
this lady, whose name is Carol, out in the corridor there. In 
fact, she came up and tugged at my coat, and I stopped to talk 
to her. 



81 

And she told me that I was supportive as well as my 
staff of the expansion of that ranch — of the dairy there, 
which meant absolutely nothing to me, be honest about it. I 
said, "When was that?" She said, "1987." I said, "Well, I 
haven't represented that area since 1973," so there's a little 
bit of an interim in there where I have had very little power. 

So, there's some things that she mentioned that I can 
understand, and other things don't make an awful lot of sense to 
me. 

But I think you have to know the whole story. I 
think you're just taking — if somebody gets in here again and 
tells us about she's saying you have to give babies bottled 
water, I think I'm going to scream. I mean, once is enough. 
We're doing a repetitive thing. 

I have the most faith in you, but I'll tell you, as I 
said to you earlier, I hope before the end of the day, you're 
going to show us horns and tail, because it's just, to me, to 
come in and hammer and hack away and be repetitive on things 
that haven't, presumably — and I hope that it's correct -- has 
not killed anyone; hasn't hurt anybody. 

Sure, there's always some thing off in the future 
that may happen. We live with contingencies. Our very lives 
are contingent. We may be here today, but unfortunately, 
tomorrow I may not be. Who's to say? 

We live with a lot of things, and I think of that 
when I hear people talk about, "This is bad for you; that's bad 
for you." Probably we have lived long enough to find out some 
of those things are wrong. 



82 

But, you know, I've made it, God willing, for 72 
years, and I'm very, very happy about that, and I'll never 
forget the day my father showed me, in Philadelphia, where they 
rehash water. I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "Well, they 
take sewage and sludge, and then they process it, and that's 
what we drink . " 

To a Philadelphian, there was never any doubt about 
that because the water is the worst water in the world. But to 
a little boy back in the early '30s, I thought, "How could that 
happen? " 

And here we are, still talking about it. I don't 
know whether we've solved all the problems that are attendant to 
that or not, but I just don't know whether, you know, heaping a 
grief upon the Committee and upon the nominee, in particular, is 
really going to settle anything. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, did you have any 
questions of the nominee that you'd like to have her respond to? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, the only thing I would ask her 
is, did you ever feel, you know, deep down within side you, why 
the hell did you ever want this job? 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've all asked that from time to 
time. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: You've been joined with my 
colleague. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I wanted to make this inquiry. 

There are five members, I guess on the State Water 
Board . 



83 

I'd like to hear you position yourself 
philosophically, temperamentally, whatever manner is clear to 
you, with the other four. Is there anyone with whom you tend to 
consistently agree on disagree? 

MS. FORSTER: Well, the simple answer is no, there's 
no one that I tend to agree or disagree with. 

I think that our Board is an outstanding group of 
individuals, all representing different specialities. We have 
our lawyer, Marc Del Piero. I think he's one of the greatest 
humanitarians I've ever met. 

We have Jim Stubchaer, and John Brown, and they're 
both in the engineering slots and tremendously qualified, 
working on really complex issues. 

And then our Chairman, John Caffrey, is a statesman's 
statesman. 

I look at myself as a middle-aged, middle-class woman 
who's raised four children, and who's walked and talked water 
conservation, water reclamation, public health issues, safe 
drinking water issues, for 20 years. 

I said yes to this because I wanted to do some public 
service. I understand the concerns raised today. There are 
stories within stories; they're very complex. 

I guess that I just want to say that I think we all 
have the same interests. I don't believe in conflict across the 
table. I think we all have the same interest, and I think that 
I'm a people's person, and I'll do everything I can do help. 

I'm very accessible to the public. I go anywhere, 
anytime, to meet with people. I'm working with people from San 



84 

Gabriel Basin. Fifteen small businessmen have to do an $8 
million clean-up, and they're frustrated. 

I go all over the state, trying to help people 
understand why we have to regulate, and what we have to do to 
protect, and what we have to do to clean up. 

So, I don't know what else to say, Senator, except 
I'm just my own person, to the answer of how do you connect. 
And we all are mature individuals with a lot of experience, 
trying to make it a better place for California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was the most difficult vote 
or decision you had to make during your service on the State 
Board? 

MS. FORSTER: Some of the water rights decisions are 
very tough. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any particular one? 

MS. FORSTER: Well, I remember one where I made the 
decision come out better. It was a very, very, very long debate 
over a river or creek in Napa Valley. And it took years of 
contentious litigation and lawyers. And a Native American woman 
came, and she was just a beautiful woman. And she felt that her 
lawyer didn't represent her well enough, even though she agreed. 

She was there, and she said, "I have a sweat lodge, 
and I need water in my stream, and I see water in all the other 
streams, and I don't know why it's not meeting our area." 

And it was so contentious that you really didn't want 
to open it up again. It had taken years, and years, and years, 
and she had signed the agreement. 

But I thought, hey, we can go an extra mile. Let's 



85 

look at this. 

So, we took a recess, and I said to staff, "Please, 
find a way to get the other parties to agree to help this 
woman. " And they came back after lunch, and we took the item up 
again. 

And they — she was so happy. It worked. It was -- 
there are a lot of issues like that. 

And I met the attorney later from our staff who 
handled it, and he said, "I died when you said to do that, but 
I'm so glad we did it." 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was the toughest one? 

MS. FORSTER: That was one of the toughest. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris , anything further? 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

I thought we'd heard from all the witnesses, I'm 
sorry. Are there more? 

Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Would the Chairman please remind the 
witnesses to keep it as brief as possible? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many more are there? Two 
additional . 

Members, Floor session has been postponed until 6:00 
p.m., but I still hope we can complete our agenda before that, 
if possible. 

MS. JENNINGS: Jennifer Jennings, General Counsel, 
the Planning and Conservation League. 

We're here to oppose the confirmation of Ms. Forster 
because we reviewed the information that the local 



86 

environmentalists prepared regarding her confirmation, and 
verified that these things did, in fact, occur. 

And I won't repeat the reasons that we think that she 
should not be confirmed, because they have been stated here. 

But I want to point out one thing that she said just 
a few moments ago, which really stunned me, which was that "we 
did not do EIRs" . 

That means that in her 10 years on the Regional 
Board, they did not consider a single project that they, in 
their mind, thought had the potential to have significant 
adverse environmental affect, or, secondarily, they violated 
CEQA. 

And I'm really very concerned about that attitude, 
because an EIR is really a public information document, and a 
document that allows for public involvement, particularly in 
water quality issues, very technical issues. 

So, we, I guess, still oppose Ms. Forster's 
confirmation as the public member of the State Water Resources 
Control Board. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MS. FORSTER: I misspoke. 

The Regional Board never initiated EIRs on dairies. 
They were usually done by the land use agency, and we would 
comment, but we didn't — we were being asked to — if I can 
remember, we were being asked to do an EIR, and that wasn't the 
typical role of the Regional Board. We responded to EIRs, but 
we didn't initiate EIRs, or do them ourselves. 



87 

MS. JENNINGS: Well, there would be many cases in 
which the Regional Board would be the lead agency for projects 
when they needed waste discharge permits, and did you then, your 
agency — 

MS. FORSTER: We didn't do the EIRs. The agency 
submitting the application for a permit does the EIR. 

It would be wrong for us to do an EIR on a waste 
discharge treatment plant. 

MS. JENNINGS: No, you are the lead agency if you're 
approving that project for, say, a publicly owned treatment 
works, and they — it should be the Regional Board's EIR in that 
case. 

MS. FORSTER: I don't know — 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I think there's a semantic problem 
here. 

I understand what the witness is saying. 

Are you saying, in effect, that the Board of which 
she is a member should physically do the EIR? 

MS. JENNINGS: They either do it in-house, or via 
contract with consulting agency. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, I think that's what the Board 
member is saying. 

MS. JENNINGS: The applicant itself does not do the 
EIR. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: The Board member is saying that they 
do it by contract. 

Am I correct in that, Ms. Forster? 

MS. FORSTER: Uh-huh. I may have to ask Tom, Tom 



88 

Jones our legislative person. 

MR. JONES [FROM THE AUDIENCE]: I don't know the 
answer to that. 

MS. FORSTER: I don't know. 

I just know that we never -- I didn't mean -- of 
course, we look at EIRs. Our whole world is about the economic 
environmental impacts . 

I can't — I misspoke, and to tell you the truth, I'm 
so tired, I don't know how to intelligently answer you. 

MS. JENNINGS: I understand that. I can understand 
that. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Sure. 

SENATOR AYALA: I believe that the lead agency has 
the responsibility of the EIR, and they can make a negative 
declaration. That's the end of it. 

So, I don't know if the Board was the lead agency or 
not on this project. 

MS. JENNINGS: Well, I would think within a ten-year 
time period, the Board would certainly have been a lead agency 
in a number of projects. 

But, I can understand her misspeaking. I just was 
really struck by that, by that statement. 

As I said previously, we did review the allegations 
that were made by the local environmental groups, and did 
believe that they were supported by the record, and oppose her 
confirmation as the public member of the State Board. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 



89 

Next witness. 

MR. GOITEIN: My name is Ernest Goitein, and I'm with 
the Peninsula Conservation Foundation of Palo Alto. 

And of course, we're very interested what kind of a 
person represents — is represented on the State Board. 

I also served for a couple of years on the San 
Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary project, as well as the South Bay 
Coalition to Clean Up the South Bay. 

And I'm not that familiar with the details of what 
happened in San Diego, but I look at the institutions and 
witnesses that have supported Ms. Forster's confirmation. 
They're all water districts, that is, organizations that, in 
effect, are required to get permits. So, there is a 
relationship there. 

Whereas, the public — the public at large, the 
environmental organizations, have not supported her. So, that 
certainly has influenced my thinking. 

Also, some of the testimony I heard today about the 
hazardous waste strike force removed the San Diego Regional 
Water Quality Control Board is pretty — pretty astonishing to 
me, and that only one percent enforcement on water quality 
violations, again, that is pretty astounding. 

Certainly, our Regional Water Quality Control Board 
has a much better record than that. 

So, just — you've heard the issues before. They 
were brought out by previous witnesses. I think there are a lot 
of good people in this state that can represent the interests, 
water interests, of the public. 



90 

And I'm sorry to say, I don't feel Ms. Forster is 
suitable for that position. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MS. FORSTER: Can I say one thing, Senator, for the 
San Diego Regional Board? 

There are a lot more than one percent . I don ' t 
understand that fact, but they just don't have one percent 
compliance. 

MR. PAPARIAN: Mr. Chairman, Members, I'm Mike 
Paparian, representing the Sierra Club. 

I won't repeat any of the testimony you've heard. 
I'll just say that we believe that Californians deserve somebody 
on the State Water Board who has a stronger record of commitment 
to the protection of state waters and water quality in the 
state. We don't think that that record of commitment exists 
with Mary Jane Forster. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Any additional questions before I call on Senator 
Craven for a motion? 

Ms. Forster, did you wish to say anything in 
conclusion? 

MS. FORSTER: No. The water districts that I worked 
with didn't get permits from our regulatory agency. 

My district that I worked with were the clean water 
wholesalers of imported water, Metropolitan. So, I just wanted 
the record to reflect, I never had a conflict over permits. I 
didn't work for any waste water treatment plant. 



91 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I'd like to move the nomination of Ms. Forster to the 
Floor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there any discussion? Are you 
ready for the vote? 

Let's call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris No. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer no. Three to two. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The matter is reported to the 
Floor by a vote of three to two. 

Thank you. 

MS. FORSTER: Thank you, Senators, very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our next appointment is Mr. 
Shansby. I think we can probably deal with that in a short 
amount of time without necessitating putting it over to another 
day. It's probably worth giving it a try. 

Good afternoon. 

MR. SHANSBY: Good evening. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to begin, sir, with 



92 

any kind of general summary? 

MR. SHANSBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope this is 
brief. I know now more about waste water than I thought I'd 
learn in my lifetime. 

I am 56 years of age, which makes me a middle-aged 
person. I live in San Francisco. I'm a graduate of an out of 
state institution, the University of Washington, in 1959 in 
Seattle. 

My wife is a graduate of the U.C. system. My 
three children are graduates of the U.C. system: three from 
U.C.L.A. and one from Berkeley. 

I have a personal long history as a businessman of 
association with higher education. My business career, which 
Senator Petris knows, was with Shaklee Corporation, where I was 
Chairman and CEO for eleven years, and for the past nearly seven 
years have been the investor in a company called the Shansby 
Group, which invests in a venture capital style support of the 
growth of small consumer businesses. 

Back and more importantly to higher education, I was 
the Chair of the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education 
for four years, a complete review of the strength of the system 
of education in the State of California. I have been distressed 
in recent years with the problems in the budget, and the impact 
on higher education, but I was the Chair of that Commission and 
proud to have served the state in that way. 

I funded a chair in marketing strategy at the 
Graduate School of Business at the University of California at 
Berkeley. I served as a Trustee of the U.C. Berkeley Foundation 



93 

and of the U.C. Business School Board in Berkeley. I was a 
Trustee out of state at Springfield College in Massachusetts. I 
was a Trustee at St. Mary's College in Moraga in Contra Costa 
County. I was a Trustee of the University of San Francisco and 
was the Chairman of the Education Committee for the California 
Round Table. 

Suffice to say, I have a long history of over 25 
years of involvement in higher education as a businessman, 
because I believe there is no issue, including waste water, any 
more important than the education of the citizens of California. 

This is a second appointment for me as a Trustee to 
the University system. I fulfilled the unfulfilled term of a 
prior Trustee, and again I'm in the pick-up, clean-up role of 
filling out the term of another Trustee. 

I was the Chair — I was Vice Chairman of the Board 
of Trustees of the California State University, and was the 
Chairman of the Search Committee that selected and brought in 
for confirmation and then elected Chancellor Barry Munitz for 
the C.S.U. system. 

That is briefly my background as a businessman and in 
education. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions the 
Senators may have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, let me just inquire first if 
there are people who wish to speak either for or against the 
confirmation? 

That may make it shorter; mostly us. 

MR. SHANSBY: I believe I'm alone here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 



94 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's good to see you again. 

MR. SHANSBY: It's good to see you again, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Our acquaintance goes way back to 
the Shaklee. 

Are you still with Shaklee? 

MR. SHANSBY: No. Shaklee was unfortunately acquired 
by a Japanese corporation, and I left just prior to that, and 
I'm now a citizen of California working more or less as a 
venture capitalists. 

I miss Shaklee, but I still take the vitamins. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We need venture capitalists right 
now. 

MR. SHANSBY: We do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: In fact, our budget needs them. 

MR. SHANSBY: We need a lot of help. 

SENATOR PETRIS: If you can help us out. 

I have a couple of questions in two areas. One is 
on the fee. 

I've been a strong opponent of increasing our student 
fees at the U.C. and Cal State system. I wasn't able to prevail 
in my own Subcommittee on the Budget, so I guess that's just 
academic right now. 

We have repeatedly been told by Cal State 
representatives at our Budget meetings that they have a design 
and a plan for calculating the cost of education and having the 
students pay one-third of the cost, and then assess the fees 
accordingly. 

Now, we've never approved that in any statute or in 



95 

any budget process, but they keep saying that everytime they 
come before the committee. 

Are you familiar with that? 

MR. SHANSBY: Vaguely familiar with it. It's a 
complicated formula, I believe, to come upon. 

I think that everyone is searching to find the 
solution in this shortfall of the budget to take care of the 
students. I could talk about fees, but I'm not familiar enough 
with that proposal. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I'm glad to hear that, 
actually. Maybe it means it hasn't been universally accepted 
yet by the Board, but the people who came before us contended 
that that was the plan of the Cal State Trustees. And we asked 
them in committee, where ' d that come from? It hasn't been part 
of our — that's so significant that it should probably be 
submitted to us for approval or disapproval . 

Anyway, what is your feeling on this constant 
increase in fees? Cal State students in particular took a 
terrible beating. You know, in addition to closing down 12,000 
courses, and then charging students more for what's left, so 
instead of getting through in four years, it's now going to be 
six or seven years. There's less courses; there's less 
teachers. And yet, we're socking them with an enormous increase 
over the past two or three years . 

MR. SHANSBY: Well, it's a very, very complex 
problem. Having worked 40 hours a week and put myself through 
the University of Washington in four years, I can attest to how 
difficult it is to come up with the money to finance an 



96 

education. 

On the one hand, the State of California ranked in 
the past in the bottom two in the cost -- in the contributions 
by students to the cost of education. Or, looked at another 
way, the fees that they were paying were quite low. 

I think that was an advantage to the students, and it 
would be awfully nice to continue. 

On the other hand, the State of California -- and you 
people know much better than I do — are facing a very serious 
budget crisis that, unfortunately, is probably not likely going 
to get better in the near future. And I think it's a problem of 
where do you come up with the education, and how you come up 
with support for the education. 

My personal feeling is that the C.S.U. system, as the 
biggest system in the state, producing most of the undergraduate 
students for California and certainly most of the teachers, must 
never suffer in quality. And I think it's a three-part 
solution. 

One is, and I think we've probably gone as far as we 
can, is on student fees. 

Second is in some sort of tax relief that brings in 
higher support for the University systems. 

Thirdly is coming up with the kind of student aid 
support that really compliments the process. 

And I think that each end goes around biting the 
other one. I don't know the solution. I bleed for the 
students. Having paid it myself all the way through and made my 
own children work to earn their educations, I'm reluctant to 



97 

take the fees up any more. 

Now, on the other hand, they are low, or were low in 
the past compared to the other states in the United States . 

I think the answer really lies somewhere in a blend 
of increased taxation and in the student aid support that we 
need to be able to help with the financing of an education. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does the Board ever talk about 
recommending an increase in taxation to the Governor? 

MR. SHANSBY: To the best of my knowledge, the Board 
has not done that as a Board, but I believe, as unpopular as the 
subject is, that individuals on the Board have talked to the 
Governor, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What percentage? All of them, one 
of them? 

MR. SHANSBY: Well, most of the appointees currently 
as Trustees were appointed by a Governor that was a Republican, 
and I would think that more than a handful have talked to the 
prior Governor and the current Governor about that . 

I think that the fact that the current Governor did 
take what appeared to his own party to be an unpopular move when 
he first come into office was applauded by some people because 
of the support it gave to the higher education and all of 
education in California. 

And I believe that it's a three-part problem. Part 
of it is taxation; part of it is student aid; and part of it, 
unfortunately, is student fees. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think you've described that 
very well. It just seems to me that on two of those, we've 



98 

reached the limit. One is student fees, and the other is 
student aid that accompanies the student fee. Everytime we 
increase the fee, we up a portion, a third of that fee, for 
student aid. 

The other part of the equation just hasn't been 
addressed. The climate has been very well composed by the prior 
Governor and other Governors before him, and Presidents of the 
U.S. 

They've reached the point — and I think it's a 
serious thing because of the way it reflects on our academic 
community and our capacity to sustain it in the manner to which 
we had been accustomed and made education accessible to the 
maximum number of qualified students — it seems to be a capital 
offense to use the word "taxes". We don't even use it any more; 
we just say "the T word". That's supposed to be funny, and we 
all laugh when we hear it, but I think it's ridiculous. 

I think the Governor has done a lot to help higher 
education as much as he can. He stuck his neck out in his first 
year, and he got clobbered by his own party in the convention in 
the second year of his office. 

I think it's up to a lot of us, beginning with your 
Trustees and the U.C. Regents and us in the Legislature, to 
create a better climate that would help the Governor. He's out 
there all by himself, and he got hit very hard. 

If we had a lot of other people saying to the public, 
"Taxes aren't all that bad. You want your kids to go to 
college, you're going to be hit with a much higher tax because 
it's not true we haven't been raising taxes. We have been 



99 

raising taxes on the students, which means on their parents as 
well." And it reaches a point where it just drives a lot of 
people away from the University, even though we have the student 
aid program. The sticker shock that the student sustains on 
learning what the fees are, it's not removed by the fact that, 
well, a third of that is going to go to help, maybe, you. You 
know, maybe you're going to be eligible for that help. 

So, I would encourage you. My whole point is, I 
would encourage you and the other members to talk to the 
Governor, and let him know that you would support him, you know, 
as a very important group in this whole education scheme in 
California. And I think the more people in the public 
limelight, at least public responsibility, who give 
encouragement in that direction, the more likely the Governor is 
to go along. 

I can see why he's gun-shy. He took some terrible 
criticism. In fact, his own party said they wouldn't endorse 
him for re-election. I don't know if they're changed their 
minds, but that's enough to deter any person from pursuing a 
particular goal. 

If the climate is improved, instead of everybody 
saying, "I don't want to hear the word 'taxes'; no taxes under 
any circumstances, no matter what the price is going to be 
toward the quality of our education," well, then, we're going to 
go down the tubes . 

If people start saying, "Wait a minute. We can 
afford a little bit more. We can afford it in this way and 
that, let's try it," I think we can turn it around. 



100 

MR. SHANSBY: Senator, I applaud what you're saying. 

My whole direction, and I didn't ask for this 
appointment, I didn't seek it out. I've served long and hard 
for higher education because I believe it's important. 

When I was the Chair of the Master Plan Review 
Commission, I made it clear to all of the Commissioners that I 
didn't want to talk any politics; that the bottom line was the 
our client was the student, and education was priority number 
one. 

I feel that way about the C.S.U. And whether it's 
taxes, or student aid, or fees, what comes first is making sure 
that our students are served as the client, and that the State 
of California is served by improving education. 

And I think we all have to work on that, and I will 
continue to do what I did. The last time I was here I talked 
about that as well. I don't think we're far apart on that at 
all. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks. 

MR. SHANSBY: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I would with to ask you the 
questions that are posed by Senator Hayden's letter to us, which 
you've probably seen a copy of. Essentially, it suggests that 
there's a pattern during your tenure, Mr. Shansby, of voting for 
student fee increases, and at the same time or almost the same 
time, voting for various forms of executive compensation. 

So, maybe for the record, you could talk with us 
about that for a minute. As a way to perhaps discipline the 
discussion, I have three or four points that are made to us. 



101 

Perhaps if you could reflect on any of them, or indicate well, 
that was a hard one, or that was an easy one, or some way in 
which we could understand your approach to these problems and 
philosophy. 

The first that we're informed of is, in October of 
last year, voting to increase student fees rather substantially, 
and then at the next meeting, approving the increase in housing 
benefits for University presidents. 

MR. SHANSBY: Mr. Chairman, Senator Hayden and I had 
a chat earlier today, and it was the first time I had seen the 
letter. 

I pointed out some inaccuracies, and he submitted a 
revised letter later in the afternoon. He had not recalled that 
I had a long record of service in higher education. He hadn't 
even recalled that he and I had worked together on the Master 
Plan in Joint Committee. I was sorry that I wasn't more 
rememberable than that . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I wasn't going to ask you about 
his general — 

MR. SHANSBY: Okay. 

About the fee increases, the quotes are accurate. I 
did vote the way he states, and I did at a time when the State 
of California was listed number 50 in the cost. I set as my own 
limit that the State of California should never be average or 
above average. It always should be below average in the cost 
compared to all other states in the country. 

I did this at a time when I felt that there would be 
greater deterioration in the California State University if some 



102 

fee increases weren't implemented. I felt very, very strongly. 
As a student, I think I am one of the Trustees who is, perhaps, 
closer in my views about recognizing the student as the client 
of the University, but it's painful to do these things. I know 
it because of what I went through myself. 

But yes, he's right on that. I did vote to increase 
it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be average? Can you 
recall what that dollar amount would be? 

MR. SHANSBY: The average, I don't recall the 
specific numbers, but they were at least 30 percent above the 
tuition or fees — some states call it tuition — of the C.S.U. 
The average was at least 30 percent above. 

In other words, the growth of California, the 
strength of our economy had made California such a rich state in 
education that we were able to go by for years and years and 
years without adjusting cost. We all know what happened. 

What I had set as my own parameter is that we should 
never be up to the midpoint. We should always be below it. In 
other words, always a better ride. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Wouldn't that permit significant 
increases still? We're not at the midpoint. 

MR. SHANSBY: I think there have been plenty of 
increases, and I think that both Houses up here wrassle with it 
every year as well. And I think that once you get beyond 
something above the cost of living, you get into areas of 
danger. 

We saw the student feeling in the last increase, and 



103 

I don't want to be locked into any specific increase, but when 
we're talking about, as Senator Hayden said, 24-30 percent, that 
was a long way to go. I don't think we need to make it up in 
that big a jump. 

As I said to Senator Petris, it comes back to really 
three areas: student aid, student fees, and taxes or support 
from the state. And I don't think there's a real reason to do 
this any more than we have to. And I think it's a balance of 
those three things . 

Answering the second question, I did approve both a 
package to increase salaries for presidents, which is covered 
letter — later in his letter, and with the housing. And the 
reason I did that is, in a complete review — and I had at my 
disposal all of the studies of four years of working on the 
Master Plan Commission — of the costs and the salaries and the 
support that are given to comparables across the country. It 
was deplorable at what level we were holding the presidents and 
the key administrators in this system and other systems in this 
state. 

What I wanted to see is not that these people got 
such a rich income or support system that they had it easy, but 
I wanted to make certain that we gave them the kinds of 
increases that prevented the exits of these people from the 
state to move elsewhere, where they would earn competitive wages 
and do much better. That's one of the beginnings of the 
deterioration of the system happens when you lose the key 
people: professors, support groups, presidents, vice 
chancellors. And we were deplorably low. 



104 

Another, just an aside, is I think frequently the 
California State University gets tied in with a view that people 
have about the University of California, and that's unfortunate. 
I think there's vast differences in these two systems, but I did 
support these two things . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions from 
Members of the Committee? 

I guess I would ask for any comment that you might 
provide us on faculty workload, what the controversies may be 
that you've been involved in, what your perspectives are with 
respect to the workload? 

MR. SHANSBY: Well, when you're dealing with 
faculties and the Faculty Senate, on the one hand you have 
professors in the University system that I believe are qualified 
better than anyone in the country to provide baccalaureate and 
undergraduate education and degrees in education. But faculties 
tend to want to have less of a load and more time for research. 

Quite frankly, I think that the balance of the time 
ought to be spent in teaching with the students, and in meeting 
with the students, and counseling. And so, I happen to be an 
advocate for the student, and I believe that the teaching loads, 
if you make them any lighter, you're going to have increased 
cost to the system, which is a burden or problem we already 
have. 

Now, it's very different at the University of 
California, where research is so predominant. But C.S.U., I 
think the workloads, the faculty will always complain about it, 
and the administration will always want to find a balance. 



105 

But I think that the balance should always go in 
favor of teaching and counseling to the students. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other comments? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes, I was just going to ask, have 
you noticed any decrease in the recruiting of students, 
especially the minorities, because of the increase of the fees? 

MR. SHANSBY: Not to my knowledge. 

I think that the C.S.U. has an aggressive program for 
maintaining quality, at the same time providing access, and 
then, through access, success — in other words, graduation. 

I haven't really seen, as a Trustee, any 
deterioration in that. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are the programs in place that the 
students can avail themselves that can help them with their 
fees? 

I understand that a portion of the fees will go back 
to the students in terms of loans, and those kind of things. Is 
that the way it ' s working? 

MR. SHANSBY: Well, it's a tough balance, but I would 
— I would like to continue to probe into the area of student 
aid to see for those students that have the greatest need and 
can't pay, that we find increasing programs to support it so 
that they not only have the access, but the success. 

SENATOR AYALA: But a portion of the fees do go back 
to assist the students? 

MR. SHANSBY: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: The needy students. 

MR. SHANSBY: That's correct. 



106 

Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'll pose a question, similar to 
one that I had asked the previous nominee, if there's someone on 
the Board with whom you would tend to most frequently agree or, 
perhaps, occasionally disagree, to give us a sense of your own 
perspectives ? 

MR. SHANSBY: Mr. Chairman, I believe I am probably 
the most independent member of that Board. I served as Vice 
Chair after Chancellor Reynolds left the system. I was involved 
in those committee meetings . I served as Chair to bring in 
Senator Munitz. I didn't volunteer for either one of those 
jobs . 

I believe I'm the only Vice Chairman ever to serve 
the University where I didn't ascend to the Chairmanship because 
it was not my desire. I was not looking for the recognition. 

Once again, my strongest belief is in the students 
and the education, and so I don't believe that there's probably 
anyone in the system any more independent than me. 

And I could encourage all Trustees to stand up for 
what they believe in, but to also make certain that they put a 
continuation of the great education of this state first and 
foremost, which is the students. 

No, there is no one that I — I relate to all of 
them. I understand them. I'm not afraid of them, but I'm 
pretty independent . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

I think we're at the conclusion. We need with -- 
Senator Petris. 



107 

SENATOR PETRIS: I wonder if we could put it over for 
one week, next meeting? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, that's routine, vote only. 
SENATOR PETRIS: Vote only, yes. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That will be until our next 
meeting, a vote only. 

MR. SHANSBY: Not my presence? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're certainly welcome to come. 

MR. SHANSBY: I will leave it in your hands. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

MR. SHANSBY: Thank you, sir. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately 

5:35 P.M. ] 

--00O00 — 



108 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

is IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this ^)^/ day of June, 1994. 



^T^VELXN j/MIZAKvS 
Shorthand Reporter 



258-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $6.25 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 258-R when ordering. 



n 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCMMbtmts DEPT. 

AUG 1 7 1994 



PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1994 
10:35 A.M. 



259-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1994 
10:35 A.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

RUSSELL S. GOULD, Director 
Department of Finance 

larry McCarthy 

California Taxpayers Association 

DOUG WILHOIT, President 

California State Association of Counties 

SENATOR DAN BOATWRIGHT 

SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 

EUGENE L. FREELAND, Member 
Board of Directors 
Hastings College of the Law 

MAUREEN E. CORCORAN, Member 
Board of Directors 
Hastings College of the Law 

E. JACKSON GOING, Member 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued^ 

RALPH NOBLES, Planning Commissioner 
County of San Mateo 

JANICE B. DELFINO 
Ohlone Audubon Society 

FRANK DELFINO 

J. GARY SHANSBY, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

RONALD L. ALVARADO, Deputy Secretary 
Health and Welfare Agency 

JEANNE L. CAIN, Deputy Secretary 
Health and Welfare Agency 

KAREN KEESLAR 

Caifrnia Nurses Association 

MICHAEL C. MAYER, Member 
Teachers ' Retirement Board 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 

Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees t 

RUSSELL S. GOULD, Director 

Department of Finance 1 

Witnesses in Support: 

larry McCarthy 

California Taxpayers Association 1 

Question by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Instance When Nominee Disagreed 

with Cal Tax 2 

DOUG WILHOIT, President 

California State Association of Counties 3 

Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

Office of Information Technology 4 

Conflict of Interest Problem with 

former Director of OIT 5 

Various Department of Finance Audits 6 

Department of Finance ' s Role in the 

California Museum of Science and Industry .... 8 

Department of Finance ' s Duties under 

Government Code Section 13332 9 

Department of Finance not Meeting Responsibilities 

under Law re: OIT, California Museum of Science 

and Industry, and Department of Insurance .... 13 

Responses by MR. GOULD re: 

Issues regarding Office of Information Technology 13 

Governor ' s Task Force on Government Technology 

Policy and Procurement 14 

Role of OIT 14 



INDEX ( Continued ^ 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Legislative Analyst's Report on State Computer 
Projects 16 

Status of Department of Social Services 

SAWS Project 18 

State's Computer Systems: Stalinist vs. 

Maoist 19 

Due Date of Report from Task Force . 2 

Questions by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

March, 1991 Report by Acting Director of 

OIT, Critizing DMV Project 2 

Decision to Appoint KOLODNEY as Director 

of OIT 21 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Authorization of Increased Appropriations 

for California Museum of Science and Industry 

Retrofit Project 22 

Request for Full Report 2 3 

Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

Lack of Notification by Director of Finance 

on Change of Scope and Cost 2 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Situations where Department of Finance 

Authorized Appropriations after Joint 

Budget Committee Rejected Requests 25 

Questions by SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP re: 

Request to MR. GOULD for Amount of 

Attorneys ' Fees Paid to Outside Counsel 

Retained by Commissioner of Insurance 25 

Nonresponsive Answers from Department of 

Finance 2 6 

What Will Happen in Future Requests for 

Information 2 8 



VI 

INDEX ( Continued ^ 

Statements by SENATOR BOATWRIGHT re: 

Sole-source Contracting 30 

Need to Comply with Law 31 

Approval of Scope Changes 31 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Need to Review New Information on Ward Valley . . 32 

Private Company Buying Land for Dump Site .... 33 

Decision to Continue Hearing after Luncheon 

Recess 34 

EUGENE L. FREELAND, Member 

Board of Directors 

Hastings College of the Law 35 

Background and Experience 35 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Lack of Diversity on Board 37 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Need for Non-Hastings Graduates on Board 38 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Governor's Suggestion to Privatize One 

State Law School 39 

Motion to Confirm 41 

Committee Action 42 

MAUREEN E. CORCORAN, Member 

Board of Directors 

Hastings College of the Law 42 

Background and Experience 42 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Most Significant Controversies during 

Tenure as General Counsel with U.S. 

Department of Education 4 3 



Vll 

INDEX (Continued^ 

Duties at Current Law Firm 44 

Opinion on Privatization of Hastings 44 

Motion to Confirm 4 5 

Committee Action 45 

E. JACKSON GOING, Member 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

San Francisco Bay Region 4 5 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

RALPH NOBLES, Commissioner 

Planning Commission 

San Mateo County 4 6 

JANICE DELFINO 

Ohlone Audubon Society 4 7 

Response by MR. GOING 49 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Mayhews Landing Problems in Past 4 9 

Proposal for Public Forum 50 

Response by MR. GOING 50 

Witness in Opposition; 

FRANK DELFINO 50 

Motion to Confirm 51 

Committee Action 80 

J. GARY SHANSBY, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 52 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re; 

Concern about Nominee's Independence on Board . . 52 

Letter from Nominee 52 

Motion to Confirm 53 

Committee Action 54 



Vlll 



INDEX (Continued^ 

RONALD L. ALVARADO, Deputy Secretary 

Health and Welfare Agency 54 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Duties and Responsibilities 54 

Participation in No on Proposition 65 

Campaign . 56 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Designation as Chief of Staff of Sacramento 

County 56 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Department's Program on Proposition 99 Funds ... 57 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Realignment and Restructuring 60 

Work in Washington, D.C 60 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Balancing Governor's and Secretary's Right 

to Select Deputies with Personal 

Philosophy 62 

Motion to Confirm 6 2 

Committee Action 62 

JEANNE L. CAIN, Deputy Secretary 

Health and Welfare Agency 63 

Background and Experience 63 

Witness in Support: 

KAREN KEESLAR 

California Nurses Association 64 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Work with IHSS 65 

Budget for IHSS 66 

Need for Congressional Waiver 6 8 



IX 



INDEX (Continued) 

Protection of Proposition 99 Funds 6 9 

Getting around Four-fifths Voting 

Requirment to Divert Prop. 99 Funds 71 

Court Decisions on Diverson of 

Prop. 99 Funds 7 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Hardest Part of Job 7 4 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Disparity in Estimates of Cost of Health 

Care Plans 7 5 

Fiscal Studies of Single Pay System 7 5 

Motion to Confirm 7 8 

Committee Action 7 9 

MICHAEL MAYER, Member 

Teachers Retirement Board 7 9 

Background and Experience 7 9 

Motion to Confirm 7 9 

Committee Action 8 

Recess 80 

Afternoon Proceedings 81 

RUSSELL S. GOULD, Director 

Department of Finance (Resumption) 81 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Purchase of Land at Ward Valley Site 81 

Reimbursable Costs Incurred by Contractor .... 82 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Public Works Board Information 83 



x 

INDEX (Continued) 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Request to Include in Report the Approval 

of Additional Capital Outlay without 

Legislative Authorization 84 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Questionable Reimbursable Expenses Incurred 

by U.S. Ecology 85 

Title of Purchased Land for Ward Valley Project . 86 

Conflicting Statements on Levels of Plutonium 

at Disposal Site 89 

Nominee ' s Knowledge at Time of Confirmation 

Hearings as Secretary of Health and Welfare ... 89 

Language Crossed out in Final EIR Report 91 

Need for Legislative Oversight Committee on 

Ward Valley Project 94 

Written Memorandum from Legislative 

Coordinator on Policy for Handling 

Inquiries from Legislators 94 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Excellent Relationship with Legislature 9 8 

Motion to Confirm 98 

Committee Action 9 9 

Termination of Proceedings 99 

Certificate of Reporer 100 

Addendum: Two-page Letter to CHAIRMAN LOCKYER 
from J. GARY SHANSBY in Response to Discussion 
with SENATOR PETRIS at Prior Hearing 101 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Gould, are you in need in 
various places around the building today? 

MR. GOULD: That would be helpful, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're next. We've actually got 
Mr. Going, but I think he'll be patient for a few minutes while 
we let you come up. 

Please let Senators Kopp and Boatwright know if they 
wish to join us. 

Good morning. 

MR. GOULD: Good morning. It seems like just hours 
ago. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know you've been through a 
hearing, and it's been reported out once before. 

I don't know if there's anything additional that 
perhaps you would want to comment in any way? 

MR. GOULD: No, I think, Senator, we have gone over 
my experience in meetings that we've had together, as well as 
before this Committee. I think people know my background. I 
think that's been well covered. 

So, I ' d be prepared to answer any questions you might 
have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask if there's anyone in 
the audience who would wish to make a comment on the question of 
the Director of Finance? Anyone present? 

MR. MCCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate 
Rules Committee, my name's Larry McCarthy. I'm representing 



California Taxpayers Association. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're opposed? 

MR. MCCARTHY: Actually, we're in support of the 
confirmation and would urge you to make that recommendation to 
the Senate. 

The Cal. Tax staff has had an opportunity to work 
with Mr. Gould for a number of years at Finance, at the Health 
and Welfare Agency, and then since his appointment, as Director 
of Finance. 

We have — we think that he is highly qualified for 
the position of Director of Finance. He has the knowledge of 
both state and local government finance based on a pretty 
impressive background and experience. He also brings with him 
some qualities we think are important right now, some integrity. 

We have an issue of public finance which is in really 
crisis proportion. He indicates and has demonstrated a 
willingness to listen and demonstrated to us a deep commitment 
to putting California back on a sound financial footing. 

He's made himself available to organizations who have 
an interest in public finance. The bill that we just — you 
were just discussing, and the need for the public to become more 
involved in this process, he has spoken to business 
organizations and others, trying to inform them as to the 
magnitude of the problem, and what some of the possible 
solutions might be. 

We have — he's not always agreed with our position. 
He has not always told us what we wanted — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When did he disagree? Is there a 



specific instance? 

MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. We had a real strenuous 
disagreement about a year ago over the transfer of the property 
tax from cities and counties to schools. We had a number of 
meetings, and I would say it was a strenuous disagreement. And 
he didn't agree, but I think it demonstrated to us that he was 
willing to listen. He offered some alternatives and we were 
pleased to see that in the 1994-5 budget, there was an effort to 
try to restore that property tax to cities and counties. So, we 
felt that there was — he was listening at that point. 

So, and I just conclude by saying that we're 
obviously — we face a real serious problem in California. It 
would be unfortunate, in our view, if we lose the experience, 
the skill, the knowledge, and the commitment that Mr. Gould 
represents in this position. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MR. WILHOIT: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
my name is Doug Wilhoit. I'm a Supervisor in San Joaquin County 
and President of the California State Association of Counties. 

In the sake of time, I won't repeat much of what was 
said by the previous speaker, but we agree wholeheartedly. 

I personally have found it very enjoyable, 
enlightening, and sometimes, yes, frustrating in working with 
Russ, but he's a man of his word. He's very knowledgeable; he's 
very sincere. He has the best interests of California in its 
entirety in mind. 

And I think that on behalf of the officers of CSAC, 



we'd like very much to have this Committee pass on his name for 
confirmation to the full Senate. 

Appreciate your time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Is there anyone else present who's wish to comment? 

Senator Boatwright, I know you had questions. I 
appreciate your willingness to participate. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: I appreciate your concern. 

I guess since I basically have for years now been 
Chairperson of the Subcommittee on State Administration that 
handles the administration, including the Department of Finance, 
I've been closer to at least the financial aspects of what's 
going on than most Legislators, and a lot closer this year than 
I desired to be. 

But there have been some things that I think should 
be at least considered by this Rules Committee, and I'll just 
take a couple of minutes and go over some of these, because I 
think they're of utmost concern to, certainly, me as a 
Legislator, and I know to other people also. 

Senator Alquist, and I, and Senator Hill, and Senator 
Kopp heard the Department of Finance's budget, and part of that 
was OIT, the Office of Information Technology. Fairly extensive 
hearings with respect to the Office of Information Technology, 
and during those hearings, it became rather obvious that OIT was 
not doing its job. 

OIT has oversight, for example, of procurement 
contracts for computers, computer software, hardware, and the 
DMV $44 million screw-up contract. And of course, everyone 



points the finger at everyone else. That happened before our 
Subcommittee. DMV blamed OIT; OIT blamed the Department of 
Motor Vehicles; everyone else blamed someone. 

But nevertheless, there was a $44 million fiasco 
that's going to cost the state $44 million and probably more 
than that to get us out of the contract before it's all over. 
And the Office of Information Technology, in my opinion, not 
entirely under Mr. Gould, who's only been there about a year, 
but going back for many, may years, didn't do their job. And 
they haven't been doing their job with respect to information 
and technology. 

And I think unless everyone has their head in the 
sand, that perhaps we can get agreement from almost everyone in 
this room that OIT has not been doing their job. 

In addition to that, in my opinion there was a 
tremendous conflict of interest by Steve Kolodney, who was the 
head of OIT until just a matter of weeks ago, when a voluntary, 
or compulsory, or however you want to put it, reassignment 
occurred, although he still works for the State of California. 
But this gentleman who was in charge of OIT until just a few 
weeks ago worked for Tandem. Actually, he worked with a 
lobbyist for Tandem that was awarded the DMV contract. 

He worked there for a while, then he went back to OIT 
and oversaw, of course, the administration of the Tandem 
contract. 

Now, you may not think that's a conflict of interest. 
It may not be legally, but it sure as hell is morally. 

I will say that Mr. Gould was not there when he came 



back, but Mr. Gould was there for a substantial period of time 
when this was all falling apart at the end. 

And I just think, and I've discussed some of these 
matters with Mr. Gould at one time in my office, and it gives me 
grave concern as the person who oversees the Teale Data Center, 
who oversees the Department of Motor Vehicles, who oversees the 
Department of Finance, who oversees the Office of Information 
Technology, that we have a $44 million contract that's down the 
tubes, probably will not be salvaged, and will even come to more 
cost to the State of California before it's all resolved. 
That ' s one thing . 

Another thing that I want to mention is that we have 
had, as you know, for a period of time various audits, and I 
brought three of them with me that have just been issued in the 
past few months. Here's one from April of 1994 by the State 
Auditor, "Review of the Implementation, Administration and Plans 
for the Determination of the California Residential Earthquake 
Recovery Program," which was a disaster. 

The next one was April, 1994, the Department of 
Insurance cannot completely identify its costs for implementing 
Proposition 103 and performing examinations, another absolute 
disaster. 

Does anyone else read these, incidentally? They do. 
Someone reads them. 

And a report by the State Auditor in May of 1994, 
poor management practices at the Department of Insurance, 
Conservation and Liquidation Division, warranted the 
Department's continued corrective action. Well, I don't even 



know what they mean, "continued", because there was no 
corrective action up until the date of this for years . 

What it basically boils down to was, if you've read 
these reports, for example, the Division of Conservation and 
Liquidation was out of control. And the Subcommittee that I 
Chair, starting last August, started asking for this report from 
the State Auditor. We had to jump through hoops to get it, 
because it was an expensive audit; finally we did get it, 
basically on our own because I threatened to withhold $118,000, 
the cost of the audit, from the Department of Insurance budget 
and reimburse the State Auditor for the audit. That's basically 
how we got the audit finally. And it was paid for, agreed to, 
by the Commissioner of Insurance finally. 

I'm bringing these out because the Department of 
Insurance also audits — I'm sorry. The Department of Finance 
also audits the Department of Insurance. Approximately $800,000 
a year is paid by the Department of Insurance to the Department 
of Finance for audits. There are full-time audits, continuous 
audits that are being performed by the Department of Finance in 
the Department of Insurance. 

I asked last year that those audits be sent to me. I 
got some of them. They're useless. They're useless. That's 
$800,000 that's absolutely wasted, in my opinion. 

I invite you to ask for the audits , to look at the 
audits, to see if I'm joking. Nothing really was picked up 
comparable to the fraud, actual fraud, mismanagement, in the 
Conservation and Liquidation Division. Such fraud as, for 
example, the person, one of the persons one time in charge of 



8 

one of the insurance companies that was taken over that was 
responsible for having the sale and the auction went and picked 
out items herself, took the items home, and then determined she 
had paid $200-300 for them. That was the price she put on them. 
Those kind of things, sad but true, and other things. 

I invite you to read these reports . 

But what I'm trying to say is that the Department of 
Finance, in their audits, should have a long time ago 
restructured them, or thrown them out and saved that kind of 
money . 

And the last thing, and I could go on and on and on, 
I guess, because I guess when you review someone's budget, you 
get to be part of the process in that particular department, or 
agency, or whatever it happens to be. 

The last thing I want to mention is the Department of 
Finance's role, which Senator Petris, I think you'd be 
interested in this, because most people don't even know that the 
Department of Finance played a role in the California Museum of 
Science and Industry, but they did, because state law requires 
that they play a part. And I brought the law with me to read. 

The Department of Finance signed off on the Museum of 
Science and Industry project on March 30th of this year. They 
authorized the Division of the State Architect to proceed with 
the bids on the project, and other things that they didn't do. 

For example, the money, as spelled out in this bill 
— this is the bill that authorized the retrofitting of the 
Ahmanson and the Armory in the Museum of Science and Industry. 
It was AB 1927 by Hughes. It called for seismic rehabilitation 



and appropriated the sum of $39,950,000. 

Instead of a seismic retrofit, of course we know now 
that the money was funneled into building a new building for a 
newly created exhibits building, and that the two historic 
buildings would be torn down, and only the front facade of the 
Ahmanson building was to be preserved. 

Now, why am I telling you this? I'm telling you this 
because I'm going to read you a code section now. Section 
13332.11 of the Government Code imposes very specific duties on 
the Department of Finance, very specific specific duties in 
capital outlay projects. If you'll permit me, I'll read just 
part of this. This is 13332.11(a): 

"No funds appropriated for capital 

outlay may be expended by any state 

agency . . . until the Department of Finance 

and the State Public Works Board ..." 
on which Mr. Gould sits as a member of the State Public Works 
Board, 

"have approved preliminary plans for the 

project to be financed from the 

appropriation for capital outlay 

This, I think, is very important. In other words, 
this gentleman here not only is the Director of the Department 
of Finance, but sits on the Public Works Board, and they have 
certain duties with respect to capital outlay right here. As I 
say, they have to approve the expenditure of these funds. 

And then under (b), it says: 

"No substantial change shall be made from 



10 

the preliminary plans or working drawings 
as approved by the State Public Works 
Board ..." 

of which he's a member, 

"and the Department of Finance without 
written approval by the Department of 
Finance. " 

So, not only did the Public Works Board play a part, but during 

the past year, the Director of the Department of Finance. 

And the reason I say that is, if you go to (f) in 

this code section, (f) is very important; (f) says this: 

"Prior to State Public Works Board 
action on any capital outlay 
appropriation, the Department of Finance 
shall certify, in writing, to the 
Chairperson of the Joint Legislative 
Budget Committee, the chairpersons of the 
respective fiscal committees, and the 
legislative members of the board that the 
requested action is in accordance with the 
legislatively approved scope and cost. 
If, pursuant to the other provisions of 
this section, the Department of Finance 
approves changes to the approved scope or 
cost, or both, the department shall report 
the changes and associated cost 
implications . " 
And I'm here to tell you that there were no reports 



11 

to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee of change of scope or 
money . 

The bill, so there's no misunderstanding here, the 
bill very specifically, in Section 4, appropriates for the 
purpose — I'm going to read it: 

"There is hereby appropriated the sum of 
$39,950,000 from the Earthquake Safety and 
Public Buildings Rehabilitation Fund of 
1990 to the California Museum of Science 
and Industry. These funds shall be used 
for the correction of all seismic and 
other fire and life safety problems 
identified with the Armory and Ahmanson 
buildings located at the California Museum 
of Science and Industry . . . . " 

The Department has upped the cost of the project from 
the thirty-nine five without notifying the Joint Legislative 
Budget Committee. As a matter of fact, I'm informed by the 
Legislative Analyst, who handles this matter, that the 
Department of Finance approved the proposal to go to bid on 
March 30th, 1994, when there were no bid documents at CSMI . And 
as you know, the law requires that the Department of Finance 
approve the bid proceedings or procedures . 

And this is what just prompted the Legislative 
Counsel's opinion; exactly what just prompted it. If you have 
the opinion, I have it. You can read it. It was in response to 
a request by Senator Petris . They answered. It was illegal; 
wasn't done properly, and the scope of change was there. They 



12 

addressed this issue. 

And the Department of Finance, and the buck has to 
stop somewhere — and I like what Harry Truman said — it has to 
stop at the top. The Director was supposed to notify Senator 
Alquist, as the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget 
Committee, of the changes in scope and of the additional cost, 
which is now up to, I believe, around 44-something million 
dollars . 

Also, I might point out to you that another section 
of the law that's been violated, and this is in (f), it says: 

"The reports shall also include all 

proposed or potential augmentations in 

excess of 10 percent of the amount 

appropriated ..." 
thirty-nine nine fifty, 

"appropriated for construction contract 

costs related to the capital outlay 

projects . " 

The Public Works Board approved an augmentation of 
over 10 percent in March of 1994. And again, I don't know if 
Mr. Gould was present at that meeting, but either he or his 
designee by law are supposed to be there. He's a member of that 
board. 

Anyway, I bring these matters to your attention 
because they give me grave concern that the Department of 
Finance is not doing their job. 

I'm not telling you what to do with respect to this 
appointment, but I am telling you that the Department of Finance 



13 

has not been meeting their responsibilities under the law with 
respect to the Office of Information Technology, with respect, 
certainly, to the California Museum of Science and Industry, and 
with respect to the Department of Insurance, those three. 

Now, I could go on and get into other things that I'm 
familiar with, because I Chair the Budget Subcommittee that 
hears this. I'm not going to get bitchy about it. I'm not 
going to get nit-picking about it. 

These are three important things that give me pause 
for concern. So, I bring these to your attention because I 
think they ' re very serious . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think maybe it would be 
constructive to go through each of the three briefly, if 
Mr. Gould is sufficiently informed to be able to respond. 

Senator Boatwright, the first is the Office of 
Information Technology. I saw you making notes. 

MR. GOULD: Well, let me first mention that we did 
have an opportunity to discuss this. I met with Senator 
Boatwright on May 16th, and we talked about the issues related 
to the Office of Information Technology extensively. And so, 
I'm familiar with some of his concerns. 

I think we have to recognize that I don't think 
anyone is satisfied when you hear of a situation like what is 
going on in the Department of Motor Vehicles, where there's a 
potential of a large amount of public funds, and what the net 
benefit of that is going to be, that we can be satisfied in what 
we see . 

I think the Governor also recognizes that, and 



14 

because of that, established a task force on Government 
Technology Policy and Procurement to do a complete review, to 
get outside views from people who have been successful in the 
private industry, to make a reassessment of how we handle both 
procurement, contracts, and the use of information technology 
within California government. I think that's appropriate. 

I mentioned to Senator Boatwright that that study was 
going to be completed, and we were looking forward to that to 
give us some view from an outside perspective of how information 
technology should both be acquired and used in the future . 

I also mentioned to Senator Boatwright at the time we 
met that I think there is some misunderstandings regarding the 
role of the Office of Information Technology. This is a group 
of 17 people: 15 professionals, 2 support staff. And I think 
that in many cases, people view the potential of this group as 
having total oversight of every data processing project and 
activity going on in the State of California. 

I ' d suggest to you that that is not credible . You 
have multi-million, hundreds of million dollar projects going on 
statewide. There is a reporting requirement both to ourselves, 
to the Legislative Analyst, to assess what's going on in 
establishing, monitoring, the development of information 
technology projects. I think that's appropriate. 

But there are other players involved. The Department 
of General Services is responsible for procurement. They're 
responsible for contracts. Those are not in the purview of the 
Office of Information Technology. 

But most importantly, the responsibility for making 



15 

sure that projects work rests with the administrators of 
departments. They're the ones who must make information 
technology part of the daily working responsibilities of their 
staff in order to be responsive to the people of California. 
That does not happen easily. We are in an information age that 
demands you use information technology as a means of achieving 
your desired goals. We invest in those department directors and 
their management staff the responsibility to assure that when 
funds are appropriated by the Legislature to enact automated 
systems to better serve the clients within those operations, 
they have a responsibility to fulfill that obligation. 

We work with them on that, but it is not the sole 
responsibility of the 17 people within the Department of Office 
of Information Technology. They work very hard within the 
resources they have to do the oversight and to provide some 
input to the departments, but it is not their sole 
responsibility. 

I think to suggest that they are the independent 
party responsible for all data processing within the state 
overstates what their obligation is and what they are staffed to 
accomplish. 

As we discussed with Senator Boatwright, I think it's 
very clear on some of the suggestions you've made regarding 
audits, some of the suggestions you've made regarding oversight 
and monitoring of both data processing or the Department of 
Insurance, that those are substantially expanded roles from what 
the Department of Finance is currently staffed to do. 

And we talked about whether or not in the past the 



16 

decisions made in terms of reducing staff, because we have 
reduced with staff with Office of Information Technology by 
eight positions over the last three years. There' ve been 
reductions in the number of audit staff in the Department of 
Finance. As all departments in state government have had to 
tighten their belts, so has the Department of Finance. We've 
had to make some decisions about where to make those reductions . 

But I think you raised legitimate questions about 
what the future should hold in terms of oversight and monitoring 
of those functions, and we'll be glad to work with you, to 
continue to work with you, in those areas. 

I think we look forward to the response of the 
Governor's task force on Government Technology Policy and 
Procurement to give us an independent perspective that we can, 
working with you, make an assessment of where we go in the 
future . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In June, I guess it was, the Leg. 
Analyst issued a report identifying about a dozen computer 
projects that are in excess of a billion dollars total, all of 
which have had both time delays and extensions and cost 
overruns . 

Is that not DOI that's in the loop with respect to 
those matters? 

MR. GOULD: We absolutely are. We get both the 
original feasibility studies submitted by the department, where 
they access what they're trying to achieve. From a business 
planning standpoint, what are you trying to achieve with this 
information technology? Does it meet a reasonable business 



17 

task? Is it a good investment of taxpayer dollars to try to 
make this project work, and what benefit is it going to be to 
the clients who use this system? 

We review that to see if, in fact, we believe it is a 
good investment. From that point, it is the department's 
responsibility to work with the Department of General Services 
on either contracts, procurement, or other management efforts to 
make sure that the project works. 

We get annual reports on specific projects, 
especially the large projects through special progress reports 
that identify what progress those departments are making in any 
of those projects. So, we work on all of those efforts. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, a dozen of them doesn't alarm 
you to have that kind of slippage? 

MR. GOULD: Well, I frankly think we would quarrel 
with some of the indications made by the Legislative Analyst. 
Clearly, on a project like the Department of Motor Vehicles, 
we've got a major concern. 

In other areas where there are problems, any time 
you've got something that's unexpected, that exceeds the cost, 
we're going to want to know why; is there a good, legitimate 
business reason why that additional cost occurred, and we want 
to look at that. 

But I think that you must also recognize there are a 
number of data processing projects that are an integral part of 
state government that are working very well, whether it's 
computer-aided design in the Department of Caltrans, whether 
it's automated fingerprint services within the Department of 



18 

Justice, some of the taxpayer information systems at Franchise 
Tax Board, there are a number of quality systems that have also 
been implemented during this period of time. 

So yes, in fact, there are problems. That's why the 
Governor has indicated the need to get an outside review by that 
task force, and we are concerned anytime taxpayer dollars are 
put in a situation where you don't get the full return for the 
investment made . 

But I think there are also some very positive things 
that are going on. I think there's a tendency to focus on the 
problem areas and not on the things that are working well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In this batch, one is the Social 
Service Department SAWS, which is one of the bigger ones, 800 
million, or something. 

What ' s the status of that particular program? 

MR. GOULD: Well, as I recall, the SAWS project has 
not moved into full operation, that it is moving on an 
incremental way so that we can make sure that the pieces work. 

Rather than trying to go statewide with a single 
system and saying, "We are assured that this is the only way to 
make this system work, " and to have that system go out into 
statewide application, we think it's premature. It's a very 
expensive system. It's one that's well needed in order for us 
to be able to make best use of staff. We're working on the 
eligibility intake for welfare and for Medi-Cal . We want to 
make sure that they have computer systems to assist them, but we 
don't want to rush into something until we know what we've got 
works . 



19 

We've been working on two different models to 
determine which can be most successful, and then working 
cooperatively with the counties on an implementation schedule, 
and with Senator Thompson, I might add. He's been very closely 
involved with this to make sure that our progress is successful 
as we implement it . 

So, we are in the staging process. We have not fully 
implemented it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any sense of when it ' s a wrap? 

MR. GOULD: I don't know. I don't have a final date. 
I believe it will take a number of years . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In discussing these kind of 
issues, I guess in the report in which Leg. Analyst thought 
there was a need for greater coordination among all of the 
systems, as I recall, the Department's response was to label the 
Analyst's anxieties as Stalinist, which is a kind of interesting 
pejorative, and perhaps partly true. That is, they were 
suggesting there ought to be one uniform system so that 
computers could talk to each other. 

I guess the Department's, to stay in the genre, 
approach has been Maoist; that is, a thousand computers shall 
bloom. 

Where are we headed with respect to these 
disagreements? 

MR. GOULD: Well, first, I don't think that the 
comment was intended of the Analyst. It says some perspectives 
indicate. 

I think it ' s premature for me to comment . I think 



20 

that's one of the things we're looking for from this independent 
review panel. I think we really need to reassess that, and how 
we integrate and make best use of systems so that we don't try 
to reinvent the wheel, I think, is a fair question. 

And I think that there are legitimate issues that 
have been raised by the Legislative Analyst, but until I get 
that report, I can't tell you. I don't want to — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When are you going to get that, do 
you think? 

MR. GOULD: I believe it's mid-August. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Boatwright, on this issue? 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Yes. 

On the Office of Information Technology, there was a 
report that came out, I believe it was in March of 1991, by the 
then acting Director. I think his name was Khunel, K-h-u-n-e-1, 
which was very critical of the DMV contract, exceedingly 
critical. 

Almost immediately after that report was issued, this 
gentleman was relieved as the acting Director, and by Mr. Gould, 
he was replaced by the gentleman who had been working for the 
lobbyist who were lobbying for Tandem that got the contract, 
Steve Kolodney, almost immediately after that came out. 

So, whatever you think about what happened or didn't 
happen, nevertheless, the person who had the very distinct 
conflict of interest was appointed to this position as Director 
of OIT by Mr. Gould in March of 1991. 

MR. GOULD: First, let me respond. 

I was not Director of Finance. I did not have 



21 

appointment authority, so that is inaccurate. I did not appoint 
Steve Kolodney. 

I was part of an interview team that assessed Steve 
Kolodney. Tom Hayes made the decision to make that appointment. 

I did inform Ron Khunel that he was not going to be 
the person; he was a competitor for that position, and that was 
my role in that process. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: The announcement, the 
announcement, was made by Mr. Gould. 

MR. GOULD: That's correct. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: So, I assumed, since he at that 
time was the Deputy Director of Finance, in charge of Finance at 
that point in time by Governor Wilson, who made the 
announcement, certainly played some part in relieving this 
gentleman. And I understand at the time, and there was a big 
story, I have it here before, that states that he was relieved 
primarily because of his very critical analysis of the DMV 
contract, which continued under OIT unabated for many months 
after that. 

MR. GOULD: Well, Senator Boatwright, being a part of 
the interview team, I have no recollection at all of any 
discussion of that audit, nor that being any factor in the 
decision as to who the appropriate candidate might be for that 
job. 

We had a number of candidates that we reviewed, both 
within the state and outside of the state, for that position, 
and a decision was made to appoint Steve Kolodney to that 
position. 



22 

But the audit, frankly, I'm not even familiar with 
the audit. I can assure you, it had nothing to do with the 
decision on the appointment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala, did you have a 
question? 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes. 

Mr. Gould, Senator Boatwright recalled a number of 
problems, allegations. If any of them are correct, we've got 
some serious problems . 

But I want to focus on the appropriation of $39.5 
million to retrofit, seismic -wise, one of the buildings we have, 
and it's gone up to $44 million. 

Where and who authorized that increase in 
expenditures ? 

MR. GOULD: Senator, I am not familiar with that 
issue. I have not — that's the first time it's been raised to 
my attention. I am not familiar with it at all. I'll be glad 
to look into it. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're not a member of that — 

MR. GOULD: I have a Deputy Director who sits on the 
Public Works Board, and so if they made a decision to do that, 
I'm sure they acted within the law and acted appropriately. As 
a member, I would have to look back and see how we — what 
issues were presented and how we voted on it. I am not familiar 
with it. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's difficult for me to understand 
that it's within the law when the Legislature authorized the 
39.5 million, and someone who is not a member or part of the 



23 

Legislature increases it to 44 million. I don't know how that 
could be under, you know, justifiable under the law. I don't 
understand it. 

MR. GOULD: Senator, I wish I'd been aware of it, 
that this was a concern. I would have done some research on it. 

My recollection is that under the Public Works Board, 
there is some authority to make adjustment because, as whether 
you're building a home, or building a large apartment complex, 
or office space, you are going to have changes in terms of 
estimated expenses. And so, there's some flexibility that is 
provided through the Legislature to the Public Works Board to 
make adjustments for the cost. 

SENATOR AYALA: True, but that adjustment has to be 
authorized by the governing board, whoever that is. 

MR. GOULD: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: They just don't automatically do it 
on their own. 

MR. GOULD: Absolutely. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't understand. I want a full 
report on that because I think it's interesting. 

MR. GOULD: I ' d be glad to, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: On that issue, Senator Boatwright . 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Well, even if the Public Works 
board did this, according to law, the law very clearly states, 
and I read it, that the Director of Finance shall notify, it's 
mandatory, the Chairman of the Joint Legislative Budget 
Committee, the chairpersons of the finance committees of each 
House, of the change in scope and cost. That was not done. 



24 

- 

That is a direct responsibility under the law and Section 
13332.11(f) of the Director of the Department of Finance. That 
was not done . 

MR. GOULD: Well, Senator, again, this is a new issue 
to me. We have had an opportunity to meet before. I am always 
accessible to you if there's an issue that you have regarding 
what was done. I'll be glad to — 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, that's not my 
point. 

I'm not here to tell him everytime that the law is 
violated that he has to comply with the law. 

I assume that there are laws that I have to obey, and 
if I don't, it's my responsibility. 

I don't think that I have to meet with the Director 
of Finance to tell him they're violating the law. The law is 
here. You should know this. This is a very fundamental law. 
It happens every time that there is a change in scope of plans 
or a change in cost, you are to notify. 

And if you haven't been doing that on the other 
projects, then it's just not this project, it's all projects, if 
you're not aware of this code section. 

MR. GOULD: As I indicated to you, Senator, I'll be 
glad to look into that situation and report back to you as to 
what occurred and let you know all the details. 

It's the first time this issue's been raised to my 
attention. I'll be glad to be responsive. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess a related issue to ask 
about those circumstances in which there's a Section 27 or 28 



25 

letter sent; the Joint Committee turns down the request. 

Do you recall during your tenure any situations that 
you went ahead and spent the money, despite that turn down? 

MR. GOULD: I can't think of one, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay. 

Senator Kopp, Senator Boatwright ' s been talking about 
the Office of Information Technology, Department of Insurance, 
the Museum spending. Those are the three principle things. 

Did you have anything additional? 

SENATOR KOPP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one inquiry, or line of inquiry, which 
troubles me because I've known Mr. Gould a fairly long time, at 
least since I've been a Senator. He is now on the verge of 
being made permanently the Director of Finance, and I want to 
evaluate what occurred with respect to a troubling incident in 
terms of future conduct. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, on October 14th, 1993, I 
wrote Mr. Gould, as Director of Finance, with respect to 
attorneys' fees paid, outside counsel retained by the 
Commissioner of Insurance with respect to various delinquency 
proceedings of insurance carriers . 

What troubles me is this . I sent him a copy of a 
letter I had sent the Insurance Commissioner of even date which 
did not seek that specific information from the Insurance 
Commissioner. 

I asked Mr. Gould, as Director of Finance, four 
specific questions. One of those questions was: how much money 
the firm of Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliff had been paid by 



26 

the Department of Insurance and subentities since January 1, 
1991. 

The answer I got was circumlocutory. Some would say 
nonresponsive. On December 6th, or December 9th, I received a 
letter saying: 

"Dear Quentin, 

"Thank you for your letter of 

October 14th ..." 
et cetera. Attached to that letter was a copy of another letter 
which you sent the Commissioner of Insurance: 

"Since the Commissioner's response to you 

appears to address the concerns you noted 

in both letters, it doesn't seem necessary 

to conduct an independent review at this 

time. " 
Independent review was one matter. I wanted a cost. I wanted 
the total amount. 

And I'll tell you why, because there were newspaper 
stories that cited figures like $8 million in two and a half 
years, $10 million. I wanted to be exact. 

I let it go until it became pertinent to a couple of 
bills that I'm carrying, one dealing with outside counsel. And 
I had my staff call Mr. Gould's office, and my staff was 
referred to the Department of Finance audit. 

These are nonanswers, nonresponsive. It's really 
irritating. 

And then, I persisted, and then on Friday or last 
night, whenever it was, I see a letter dated July 1st to me from 



27 

Mr. Gould. He still doesn't answer the letter, and he says: I 
can't get that information together for you by Tuesday, July 
5th. Which is, I guess, understandable, but where he says he'll 
have to get it from the Department of Finance. 

So, my question, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Gould is: why 
would you simply not give me the information I asked for on 
October 14th, 1993? 

MR. GOULD: Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the 
Senator. 

First, let me clarify the dates just so we're talking 
about the same thing. 

You did make an inquiry in November. We responded 
December 6th. We attached two letters from the Department of 
Insurance, which we thought were responsive. 

I followed up in a meeting with you, where we sat in 
your office on May 17th. We talked about that issue. I said, 
if there is any additional information you need, you have to let 
me know. He says, well, I thought you weren't addressing the 
information. I said, well, I thought I did. If there's 
something you think is missing, please let me know and we'll try 
to address that. 

We didn't hear anything back again until, I believe, 
June 30th. And at that point, my Chief Deputy Director was the 
one who was in contact with your staff and was trying to work 
out the information. We indicated that by July 8th, we thought 
we'd be able to get the information from the Department of 
Insurance, and so we were following up on that. 

If we've had a miscommunication, I apologize, but 



28 

we've tried to be responsive. 

SENATOR KOPP: But why — look, this is simple to 
read: how much has the Orrick firm been paid by the Department 
of Insurance and subentities thereof since January 1, 1991? 
Isn't that understandable? 

MR. GOULD: Yes, it is. 

SENATOR KOPP: Then why supply me with copies of 
documents which don ' t answer the question as though those were 
providing the information? It should a calculation. I wanted a 
dollar amount. I still want it. 

MR. GOULD: Well, Senator, that wasn't clear when we 
met in May. And as I indicated, we are researching that 
information. We'll provide it to you. 

SENATOR KOPP: Well, what ' 11 happen in the future, 
Mr. Gould, if I sent you another letter like this, asking for a 
dollar figure, because your Department has the responsibility of 
identifying such amounts, what will happen? Will I get some 
kind of a reference to another departmental head, or some 
document which doesn't have the calculation? 

MR. GOULD: No, Senator. I think the Department of 
Finance has a history of trying to be responsive. It tries to 
be accurate, and we will continue to do so. 

If there's ever a question that you have, I think the 
unfortunate part is that we had a lot of time elapse, both from 
the December letter until when we met, May 16th, until we got 
clarification on exactly what we were trying to achieve in late 
June. I think that's unfortunate. It obviously didn't meet 
your needs . 



29 

But I think if you look at the Department of Finance, 
the professional staff there, I think they take a great deal of 
pride in providing honest and complete information to the 
Legislature. 

SENATOR KOPP: Well, here's what I'm looking at. 

I'm looking at your letter. You signed this letter 
of December 6th, 1993. 

MR. GOULD: That's correct. 

SENATOR KOPP: It's nonresponsive . It is 
nonresponsive. Why would you sent such a letter to me? 

MR. GOULD: Senator, obviously the two attachments 
which went with it, which were information which we obtained 
from the Department of Insurance, we thought was responsive. 

And when we followed up with you in May, there was no 
indication of any specific follow-up that you requested. 

SENATOR KOPP: Well, I have the Commissioner's letter 
of November 5, 1993. All he's doing, he's not answering 
questions because I didn't put to him those questions I put to 
you. I put to him a different question than I put to you. 

All he's doing is giving his rationale for hiring 
outside counsel, all the complexity issues, and all the rest of 
the rhetoric which I've heard time and again. 

I simply don't understand it, Mr. Gould. I simply 
don't understand it, unless somebody in your office simply 
thought this was the way to address it and put the letter before 
you. You struck out the salutation, "Dear Senator Kopp, " and 
wrote in "Quentin", and then you signed it. 

I just don't understand it, and it bothers me. It 



30 

bothers me. 

But I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for my 
time here and for indulging. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator Kopp. 

Senator Boatwright, did you want to jump back to the 
Department of Insurance audit issue, or anything else? We 
haven't discussed that directly yet. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: I think I've discussed it 
sufficiently. 

There's so many things that, in these hard fiscal 
times, need really addressing, and they aren't being addressed; 
truly are not being addressed. 

For example, the Auditor has issued a report on sole- 
source contracting. It's being exacerbated on a yearly basis, a 
yearly basis. The law basically is being violated because 
there's only basically one deviation that's allowed, and that's 
for emergency work. 

It goes to the Department of General Services . They 
just routinely sign off. 

I think as a matter of just good, prudent fiscal 
policy, the Department of Finance, as the fiscal arm of the 
Executive Branch, being under the Governor — General Services 
is under the Governor — ought to do something to get a handle 
on sole-source contracting, which could be costing the state, 
according to the State Auditor, substantial monies. Plus, it's 
not complying with the law, and that's why I read this. 

I guess maybe one of the bad things coming here as a 
lawyer is that you read the law. Sole-source contracting' s 



31 

being violated. This law I read is being violated. 

I would like to see whoever is the Director of 
Finance, whomsoever that person be, enforce the law, comply with 
the law. In these tough times, make sure the law is being 
complied with, and it isn't on sole-source contracting, and it 
isn't on other things, such as I read here. 

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee, had they 
known this back when the State Public Works Board — and I've 
got the dates broken out here. I can tell you when it appeared 
exactly before them. In December, 1993, the State Public Works 
Board approved the plans for the demolition, which was something 
beyond the scope. There should have been a notification as of 
that time. Then in March of 1994, the State Public Works Board 
approved the preliminary plans for new construction with the 
additional $4.2 million. That triggered, again, notification, 
which didn't occur. And then on March 30th, the Department of 
Finance authorizing the Division of the State Architect to 
proceed to bid. There should have been a notification. 

I guess all I'm saying is, we ought to comply with 
the law. 

That's all I have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator Boatwright. 

Was there anyone else in the audience that hadn't had 
a chance to comment that wished to, either for or against the 
nomination? 

Senator Boatwright, I appreciate your diligence in 
examining these matters with specificity that's rare in the 
Legislature and to be commended. 



32 

Mr. Gould, there does appear to be some — 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: I'm not taking a position. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

SENATOR BOATWRIGHT: I simply want to bring this to 
the attention of this body and to Mr. Gould. 

And if he does become the Director, I would hope that 
— I mean, I don't want to run down to his office all the time 
and say this needs doing. 

Maybe you want to appoint someone to advise you as to 
the law, if you don't have a legal advisor, so you comply with 
the law, so the Legislature's kept informed, so the law's 
complied with. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It does sound like, from the 
various comments that have been made, that there could be a 
better job of not just complying with the formality of the law, 
but in working as partners in a fuller sense. 

Senator Petris , I know there ' s a large segment in our 
packet relating to Ward Valley. The groups that had concerns 
about that in the past aren't present, partly because it's sort 
of water under the bridge, other than if there's issues that 
relate to credibility or matters that would affect current -- 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I was hoping to stay out of 
Ward Valley. We had a lot of stuff on that, and we went round 
and round, and there were court actions and so forth. 

But this massive material just came in. I haven't 
had a chance to read it. There are somethings in here relating 
to events after the fact which I think we ought to pursue, but 
I ' m not prepared right now to do it . 



33 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: My suggestion on that, Senator, 
would be, since we're going to be running into the afternoon, is 
perhaps during the lunch hour or something, you or staff could 
review, or any Member that's interested. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I would appreciate that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll hold the vote until a little 
later in the afternoon for that . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I might tell Mr. Gould so he can get 
the information, one of them has to do with the mechanism for 
acquiring the land relating to Ward Valley. 

According to this information here, the arrangements 
were made apparently as an end-run to evade certain other 
requirements to have U.S. Ecology buy the land on behalf of the 
state, and then have them reimbursed through the fee schedules 
that would be established, apparently, by the Department 
thereafter that would take into account the amount of money they 
expended so they would be reimbursed over a period of time. 

So, the question there is: why do we have a private 
company that is trying to make a contract with the state step in 
as the agent of the state? I don't know; maybe that's been done 
before. It just seems to me to be a little unusual. I've never 
heard of that before. 

That's one of the things. I haven't read completely, 
but just to alert you as to the particular subject, you might 
want to look into that. 

MR. GOULD: All right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Kind of a side-stepping thing, it 
looks like to me. 



34 

MR. GOULD: Okay, I'll be glad to look into that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I would like to ask you some 
questions on that after I've read the material. That's one of 
the areas . 

I don't know what else. There might be one or two 
others . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe, if you wouldn't mind, we'll 
sort of break on this matter, resume a little later in the 
afternoon? 

MR. GOULD: That's fine. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would that be agreeable? 

MR. GOULD: That's fine. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And then Senator, or anyone 
interested, will have a chance to review those documents, and 
we'll just get back to it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What time would you suggest? 

The reason I ask is, I have to leave at 4:30 to go 
back to the district. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about 1:30? We'll come back 
here and run back and forth between committees . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, we'll have to. Judic . will go 
on for a long time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, we'll continue to hear some 
other matters right now, but when we do take a lunch break, 
maybe we'll have additional time there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The other thing is, if I had 
received this information sooner, my normal approach would have 
been to call you immediately and have a private conversation, as 



35 

we have in the past, and I'm sure some of this could have been 
cleared up. Now it's going to take a little more time because 
of the late timing. 

There are at least one or two areas that I think I 
need to go into to clarify. 

MR. GOULD: That's fine. 

SENATOR PETRI S: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Gould. We'll 
reconvene on this later. 

Let's do the Hastings College appointments. 
Mr. Freeland, you're present I know, and I guess maybe we'll 
take one at a time, I suppose. 

Hi. Did you want to tell us anything about why you'd 
like to keep doing this? 

MR. FREELAND: Well, that's a good question. 

It's been over 40 years that I have flown from San 
Diego to Hastings, to San Francisco, and returned. I've 
probably made over 200 round trip flights, and I've probably 
spent in excess of 200 nights in hotels in San Francisco to 
attend Hastings responsibilities. And I've done that — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: For 40 years? 

MR. FREELAND: Yes. Yes, I graduated in '51, and 
it's now '94. I'm still doing it, and I started right after I 
graduated . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why don't you just move your 
practice to the San Francisco area? 

MR. FREELAND: Well, that's a good question. 

And I am looking forward to the privilege and 



36 

opportunity of continuing to serve Hastings in this new 
capacity, and I feel very strongly that there are things that 
the Board of Directors must turn their attention to. One in 
particular is the question of student fees . 

We are — Hastings Law School is governed by a law 
that provides that the Board of Regents set student fees . That 
was not always the case. It was only a few years ago that the 
Legislature adopted that law. And there's a sunset provision in 
the law that will give the responsibility back to the Hastings 
Board in 1996. 

And if I'm on that Board at that time, I'll be one 
looking for the return of the responsibility for students fees 
to where, in my opinion, they belong, and that's the Board of 
Directors of Hastings. 

Hastings is unique. Every law school is unique, but 
Hastings is especially unique with its special personality and 
self-imposed responsibilities. Hastings has its own fundraising 
capacities that are not necessarily available to all other 
schools. So there's good reason to believe that Hastings could 
certainly make as a goal a lower fee schedule for its students 
as compared to the other University of California law schools. 
But at the present time, it can't do that because it's powerless 
to set the fees independently. 

I'm prepared, I guess, to answer questions. I would 
look forward to your confirmation so that I can continue to 
serve a school I love very dearly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Freeland, you're to be 
complimented for your commitment to the school . 



37 

I guess it's not a lot either of us can do about 
this, but when you look at the Board of Directors, you can't 
help but to notice that it's entirely Anglo. I believe there 
are two women, and that's it. 

It looks like someone's not doing an adequate job of 
concerning themselves with the diversity of the state and trying 
to have it reflected in the governing board. 

That probably isn't your job, other than to maybe 
influence those that would be making those decisions, but if you 
have any thoughts about the matter, or any specific policy 
decisions that you had to make that involve ethic and gender 
diversity in programs, or hiring, or whatever, that may be 
relevant to the Board's composition, I ' d be interested in 
hearing your general thoughts . 

MR. FREELAND: Fine, Senator. 

I feel very strongly that any board should consist of 
a fair sampling of its constituents. I think that not only the 
board, but the administration, the faculty, and the student body 
should all fairly reflect the composition of the state. I think 
that, for credibility purposes, leadership must reflect the 
make-up, the general make-up, of those who are to follow, are 
expected to follow. 

And in part — and I also consider it the 
responsibility of Board members to urge the Governor, to urge 
this Committee, and to urge the Board itself to seek diversity. 

And I concur that, as I see the current composition 
of the Board, it does not completely reflect the very diverse 
student body that the school has . The school has reached out 



38 

for diversity at the student level, but it has not — but it's 
not up — it ' s not within the power of the Board now to achieve 
diversity directly. 

But I have spoken with the Governor, as an example. 
I have personally recommended Elizabeth Bradley, who's here in 
the audience, and she is an Hispanic, female Hispanic, but not 
because she's a female Hispanic exclusively, but because she's 
an extremely intelligent woman, a very capable lawyer, a fine 
graduate of Hastings, is serving as President of the Alumni 
Association, is on the Board of Directors of the 1066 
Foundation. So, I've made my effort. I intend to continue to 
make that effort. 

I fully concur that the system at the moment is not 
functioning as I would like to see it function. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sir, I compliment you for your 
efforts and encourage you in your future endeavors in that 
respect. 

Are there questions from Members? Yes, Senator 
Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Freeland, since most of the 
current Board members are graduates of Hastings — 

MR. FREELAND: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: — isn't that like putting Colonel 
Sanders in charge of the chicken coop? I mean, don't you need 
some other administrative views into the process, other than 
Hastings graduates? 

It's not your problem, however. I understand that. 

But wouldn't you suggest that, perhaps, a graduate of 



39 

other law schools could probably add some addition to what you 
normally do all the time, since you're all familiar with 
Hastings, and you go along with that. 

MR. FREELAND: Well, in line with the concept of 
diversity, the diversity of work experience could be invaluable, 
could be very helpful . 

So, I wouldn't even restrict or confine it 
necessarily to just lawyers from other law schools, but persons 
of other professions and persuasions might be also very 
invaluable . 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. FREELAND: I do not believe that harm is done. I 
do consider Hastings to be a family. So, to have family members 
come back to rule the family, to direct the family, is good. 
But outside thoughts are very beneficial as well. 

SENATOR AYALA: You need some input from other views, 
other than just members of the family. 

MR. FREELAND: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. FREELAND: Especially when it's a public 
institution serving the entire public . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Governor's budget earlier in 
the year suggested privatizing one of the state law schools. It 
wasn't indicated which one. 

Do you have any thoughts about whether that would be 
an appropriate direction to take Hastings or not? 

MR. FREELAND: Well, I would say that because it has 
always been more or less independent of the balance of the 



40 

University of California system, that were there to be a 
privatization among the four schools, Hastings would be the most 
logical candidate. 

But I have not addressed in my thinking the specifics 
of such a project, but if it was to be given serious 
consideration, I would expect Hastings to be at the forefront of 
the analysis. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have any personal leaning 
with respect to the matter? 

MR. FREELAND: Well, I have no personal desire to 
have Hastings break from the public sector. If that became of 
benefit to the state as a whole and to the student body, then it 
should be given serious consideration. 

But I don't feel some sort of chauvinistic or 
provincial — I don't have a feeling that Hastings is destined 
to become a part of the private sector or should, but I say that 
if that, in the overall scheme of good government and good 
education, that were to be considered, I think Hastings should 
be asked to consider it, and should consider it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Freeland is obviously a good 
lawyer. 

Any questions from other Members? 

I know there are people here who support your 
candidacy. 

MR. FREELAND: Yes. Could I speak of a few? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You might just maybe acknowledge 
them — 

MR. FREELAND: Yes. 



41 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — but I don't know that they'll 
need to testify. 

MR. FREELAND: All right. 

First and foremost by any standard is our current 
Dean, Mary Kay Cane, the first woman Dean in the 116 year 
history of the law school . 

And Angel Kachadur, our fine General Counsel, is here 
in support of, I believe, the nominations. 

I've already bespoken to Elizabeth Bradley, and Jack 
Smith, a fine lawyer from Hayward who has also served all the 
boards that I have and served in the same presidential capacity, 
and been Alumnus of the Year, as have I. 

And also there was John Knox, Jack Knox was here, a 
fine former Legislator, and is the Vice President of our Board 
and will be President next year. 

SENATOR AYALA: You did real well until you mentioned 



Knox. 



[Laughter. ] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much for your 



comments 



What ' s the pleasure of the Committee? 
SENATOR AYALA: I'll move the confirmation. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Ayala 
Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 



42 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. FREELAND: Well, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Continue your fine efforts. 

Ms. Corcoran, good morning. Was there anything you 
wanted to tell us generally about your service on the Board? 

MS. CORCORAN: Thank you for the opportunity to speak 
a little bit about my background. 

I am grateful to tell you why I think I may bring a 
different perspective to the Board of Hastings than some other 
people who might have been nominated. 

My first career before I went to law school, I was a 
teacher. I was serving in higher education for several years. 
I taught at the University of Iowa, training student teachers, 
and then I went to Foothill College, where I was teaching 
literature at writing before I went to law school. 

Subsequently, I was given the opportunity and the 
honor of serving as General Counsel at the U.S. Department of 
Education because of the combination of my perspective on the 
law and education, so I was very grateful to be nominated and 
hope that I — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who was Secretary at that time? 



43 

MS. CORCORAN: Secretary Bell, Terrell Bell, from the 
University of Utah, and he had been Commissioner of Education 
for a year, many years before that. He was really committed and 
continues to be committed to education and has -- serves as a 
Professor Emeritus now at the University of Utah. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What were the most significant 
controversies during that two and a half year period, '84-86? 

MS. CORCORAN: It was fairly quiet times. Of course, 
the Department of Education always has high on the agenda the 
civil rights issues. We didn't have any lawsuits that were 
particularly problematic at that time. 

We did have a lawsuit that — where we were pursuing 
in California related to the University in Sacramento, actually. 
That was Native American issues about the land should have been 
granted to Native Americans. I believe that was resolved. 

You know, this has been ten years ago, but I remember 
coming up to Sacramento and the U.S. Attorney's Office, trying 
to deal with that on behalf of the Department of Education 
because the Secretary was personally named. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were there affirmative action 
fights during that — 

MS. CORCORAN: We didn't have any really particular 
affirmative actions fights. There was just the general 
compliance issues that came up, Cal Grant issues, issues 
relating to, you know, the disadvantaged children in Chapter I 
grant disputes, but there was nothing particularly 
controversial, except trying to deal within a very small budget, 
and the problems that we continue to face today in California in 



44 

higher education. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've been in the last several 
years at PMS. 

MS. CORCORAN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are your duties there? 

MS. CORCORAN: Did you ask me, what is my practice? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. CORCORAN: I'm a health care lawyer primarily, 
but I have education clients, two education clients, that I work 
with in the educational research and development, but I was — 
I've specialized in health law for most of my professional 
career. I'm dealing with that difficult issue right now. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions? 

Did you have anything else you wanted to add? I'm 
sorry, I cut you off. 

MS. CORCORAN: No, I just wanted to state my 
background. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have an opinion you'd 
express with respect to privatization at Hastings? 

MS. CORCORAN: No, I haven't had a chance to examine 
that issue. 

I think that Hastings has been exemplary in its 
support of the multicultural diversity that our public 
university systems must serve, and an ability to do it 
efficiently and economically. And I'm not sure that that would 
continue if that particular public university were privatized. 
I think that would be a very important thing to look at. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I would concur. 



45 

Other thoughts, comments, questions? 

What is the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 
Petris. Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 
Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. Keep up the 
good work. 

Mr. Going is number two on the agenda. 

We've had some time to interview with you. Do you 
have any after thoughts, "Gee, I wish I'd mentioned," something 
that you hadn't? 

MR. GOING: Mr. Chair and Members, there were a 
couple of questions that I believe Ms. Michel has received the 
information from the Regional Board regarding my voting record. 

I've also examined the four clients, that was the 
other question, the four clients that I serve in a very small 
way. None of them hold any NPDES permits, nor do they have any 
certification permits issued by any Regional Board. 



46 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We seem to have learned that the 
federal law regarding conflict of interest for these 
appointments seems to be a barrier in Mr. Burke's case, and 
that's being reviewed in the Governor's Office, but that that 
doesn't present a legal barrier to you. That seems to be agreed 
to by all who have examined the questions posed. 

I do know there are a couple of other who weren't 
able to testify last time that were hoping to say something 
briefly today. Maybe I could ask for that, and you might 
respond, then, Mr. Going, to any new concerns that we'll hear. 

MR. GOING: Certainly, I ' d be happy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anyone that wishes to comment? 
Yes, sir, please. 

MR. NOBLES: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, my name is Ralph Nobles, and I live in Redwood City. 
And I am a member of the San Mateo County Planning Commission. 

And I'm here today to ask that this Committee not 
recommend the confirmation of Mr. Going and Mr. Burke to the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

There is a bill of particulars which has been 
submitted and it's well documented. I don't intend to go over 
that again, but there are two matters which I found were 
particularly objectionable and offensive to me, and I just 
wanted to talk about them briefly. 

I attended the meeting of the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board in which the Board voted to grant water quality 
certification for the Mayhews Landing project. And at that 
meeting, Mr. Going made comments which I felt were gratuitously 



47 

discourteous to the members of the public. 

I have been a Planning Commissioner now since 1984, 
and I have participated in, either from the podium or in the 
audience, literally hundreds of public meetings. And I don't 
think in all those meetings have I before heard such gratuitous 
discourtesy from an official. 

Second item which I take very strong exception to is 
Mr. Going's and Mr. Burke's vote to certify the Mayhews project 
without benefit of an environmental impact report, even though 
the evidence is clear that such a report would be necessary. 
And their vote was based on the fact that this was adequately 
covered in the City of Network's general plan. In that general 
plan, there were three sentences covering the Mayhews Landing 
project. 

And I think anyone who would make such a vote shows a 
disregard for the environmental laws of this state, and I think 
— I'm not sure, but I think that the meeting in which Mr. Going 
made the motion to certify that was fairly early in his tenure 
on the commission. It may have actually been his very first 
meeting. 

And I sincerely hope that this Committee will not 
recommend confirmation of these two parties . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Additional comments? 

MS. DELFINO: Thank you, Senator Lockyer and Members 
of the Senate Rules Committee. I'm Janice Delfino of Ohlone, 
that's O-h-1-o-n-e, Audubon Society. 



48 

And my first question is to Mr. Going, when did you 
first serve on the Regional Water Quality Control Board? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He was appointed 8/25/93. 

MS. DELFINO: So the September 15, 1993 meeting was 
the second, his second of serving on the Board. 

I just wonder if Mr. Going realized what the primary 
responsibility of the Regional Board is, and if he didn't, then 
I'll say that it is to protect the quality of the surface, 
ground water, and within the region of the — within this 
particular regional region, rather, I should say. 

And the Board's responsibilities and procedures are 
outlined in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act that 
deals with water resources and water quality of the state. 

And not only that, but the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board is charged with protecting water quality under the 
Clean Water Act. 

And from the transcript, the September 15th 1993 
transcript, Mr. Going's statement was that this project — I'm 
talking about the Mayhews Landing project — borders on an 
economic situation. And he claimed the project was good for 
jobs, homes, and work conditions, but not once did he mention 
water quality. The water quality issue is what the Water 
Quality Board is all about. 

And even though the staff of the Water Board denied 
— recommended denial of water quality certification, it was 
Mr. Going that recommended or made the first motion for water 
quality certification. So, I don't think that Mr. Going really 
understands what the Porter-Cologne — the Act is all about, or 



49 

what his responsibility is. 

And he was also appointed under the category water 
quality, but it didn't come through in this meeting. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Ms. Delfino. 

Anyone else that wishes to comment? 

Did you want to respond, Mr. Going? 

MR. GOING: Sir, I don't know if you want me to 
repeat . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We did discuss- 

MR. GOING: We did discuss this, and I did respond to 
the same things that have been said. 

I don't believe I made the initial motion, but was — 
besides the meeting that I attended upon being appointed, 
beginning in August of last year, I did attend six meetings, 
observing meetings, prior to that time, from February through 
August . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I did some independent research 
since our last discussion of this, since Mayhews Landing is in 
my district. 

Mostly what I learned is , it is probably among the 
best cases for a case study of what can go wrong with 
everything. Every level of government, this particular permit 
dispute, I think, has been active for not just the Water Board, 
but the whole project for something like 16 or 17 years. 

The Army Corps of Engineers, who typically have a 
2-2*5 year tenure of the colonels that rotate in and out that 
have to review these, I think there's been five colonels or six 
during the course of the discussion of just this issue. 



50 

I think I'm going to have a public forum just to 
bring all the affected and interested parties together sometime 
in the fall. It's unrelated to the issue of your confirmation, 
but just as a case study of how environmental laws work, or 
endangered species issues, or departmental actions or inaction, 
I think we might all benefit from microscopic examination of the 
basket of issues presented by Mayhews . 

MR. GOING: Senator, if I could comment, that was one 
of the reasons the proposal did have my support. It was the 
only option and the only time we would have to look at this . 
Also, the Corps had, you know, pretty much agreed and supported 
this because of the cleaning of the wetlands, which I am very 
supportive of wetlands, and multiple replacement, which this was 
going to do considerably. It would have replaced three times 
the wetlands that would have been accommodated in the 
development. It would have also put an open channel that would 
have kept that area clean, which is now polluted. 

But I felt that it was very important to our clean 



water . 



all? 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members at 



Yes, Mr. Delfino. 

MR. DELFINO: Good afternoon, Senator Lockyer and 
other Members. My name is Frank Delfino. 

I wasn't going to speak, but when I hear Mr. Going 
talking about all these great things, I should make the comment 
that the Corps of Engineers has not looked with favor upon what 
the Water Board did. 



51 

The Corps has some cease and desist on it. There's 
been no investigation for toxics, and the Water Board should be 
concerned about toxics on the site. 

So, the whole idea of recommending certification and 
approval and so on is completely out of the world, out of this 
world. That is not the case. 

There was a, you might say, a preordained or 
preconceived idea that this was going to be approved in spite of 
everything, not because of anything. 

Anyway, that's all I have to say. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

What's the pleasure of the Rules Committee? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Craven 
to recommend confirmation to the Floor. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 
Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris No. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's leave it on call. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Two to one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think there'll be an absent 
Member returning. 



52 

MR. GOING: Thank you, Senator and Members. I 
appreciate the time, and my ability to come back and speak to 
you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

We had a previous appointee scheduled for vote only . 
This is J. Gary Shansby, member of the State University Board of 
Trustees . 

Senator Petris, did you want to add any 
clarification? 

SENATOR PETRI S: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

I had some reservations at the last hearing, and I 
spoke with the nominee after the hearing and received a copy of 
a letter that he had addressed to you, in which he refers to our 
discussion, to my discussion, with him. 

I was concerned about the degree of independence that 
he would be exercising as a Trustee, since we've focused on that 
in the past. And in the letter, he sets forth some 
controversies in which he was engaged, which showed what I was 
looking for, frankly. It showed a very strong sense of 
independence, one of them in his very first year on the Board. 
A controversy over the Chancellor at that time erupted. That 
was Chancellor Reynolds, who left the system afterward. 

He made strong public and strenuous public objections 
to the actions that she had made over a period of time, and he 
had chaired the special personnel committee of the Board that 
investigated the circumstances surrounding the events and led to 
the subsequent resignation of the Chancellor and then the 
appointment of an interim Chancellor. 



53 

On paper, he's supported the revocation of the 
executive pay raises that had been approved in private and 
insisted on public hearings with full knowledge of the public at 
the time, and cites one or two other things, which I thought 
showed a pretty clear record which we didn't have before 
regarding his willingness to act independently, rather than just 
submit to whatever the administration recommends or does . 

So, I'm prepared to support his confirmation at this 
time because of those reasons, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I find them persuasive as well, 
Senator. 

We ' 11 add the letter from the gentleman in the 
record. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's fine. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anyone present who'd wish to add 
any additional comments on this nominee? 

A motion would be in order. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: By Senator Craven. 

May we substitute the roll and record the four of us 
present? 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 
Senator Petris . 

•SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 



54 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What I'm hoping, Members, is, if 
we stay at it here for just a few more minutes, we could finish 
our confirmations, and then people don't have to stay while we 
take a break and come back for, perhaps, another 20 minutes or 
so. 

Mr. Alvarado, good afternoon, sir. 

MR. ALVARADO: Good afternoon, Senator, and the 
Committee. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you want to tell us anything 
about how this job is going? What's the hardest part of it? 

MR. ALVARADO: The hardest part of it, Senator, is 
the paper work, the amount of paper work that flows around, but 
we ' re working on that . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, let me just ask you this 
direct question. 

MR. ALVARADO: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your responsibilities are 
essentially to protect children and youth in this state. 

MR. ALVARADO: That's a major part of it, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's the essence of your program 



area. 



question 



MR. ALVARADO: Senator, I'm not following the 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I haven't finished it, but that's 



55 

your duty area, is it not, the children and youth segment? 

MR. ALVARADO: Well, my duties overall, Senator, are 
— well, if I may — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you break it down? 

MR. ALVARADO: Sure. 

Under statute, there's two Deputy Secretaries. And 
it is my understanding over the year that that has evolved into 
more of an Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary type of structure. 

My role, as Under Secretary, is more towards the 
overall management of our departments, the coordination of our 
departments, and hopefully, the smooth coordination of those 
departments which would involve a variety of the programs . 

My counterpart, Ms. Cain, whom you'll have the 
opportunity to visit with later, is more responsible for the 
program and fiscal aspects of the Agency. 

I hope that sheds some light. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So you're more programmatic? 

MR . ALVARADO : I'm more management . I'm more 
coordination. I would see also more of a unique role in 
advising our Secretary, Secretary Smoley. She's a very dynamic 
individual, and because of our working relationship in the past, 
I think brings a unique perspective to my responsibilities 
directly to her and then on to the Governor. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You worked with her when she was 
running for State Senate. 

MR. ALVARADO: I did, yes, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Noted. 

Now, I noticed you also had a phase of participation 



56 

in the No on Prop. 65 campaign. 

MR. ALVARADO: Yes, I did, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that essentially a business 
decision, or one about which you feel philosophically committed? 

MR. ALVARADO: It was a little of both. I think 
philosophically, I believed that the less government the better. 
I had reservations about some of the things that Proposition 65 
brought about . 

Secondly, on the business side, I think my role in 
the Proposition 65 campaign was essentially to coordinate and 
work with some of the CEOs and managers of organizations that 
were supportive of the No on Proposition 65 campaign. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who would 
wish to make any comments for or against? 

Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Mr. Alvarado, this is very simple 
for you. 

MR. ALVARADO: Yes, Senator. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Tell me what the chief of staff of 
Sacramento County is? 

Senator Ayala and I have been with the kind of an 
outfit for years, and I've never run into that title in county 
government . 

MR. ALVARADO: Senator, you may be referring to my 
title, I was Chief of Staff and administrative assistant to 
then-Supervisor Smoley. 

I had nothing — I was not in the County 
Administrator's Office. 



57 

SENATOR CRAVEN: The way that's written, it says 
simply "'82-84, Chief of Staff, Sacramento County Supervisor, 
Sacramento. " 

MR. ALVARADO: It should have said Board of 
Supervisors. I apologize. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: You were the Chief of Staff of a 
Supervisor. 

MR. ALVARADO: That is correct, Senator, yes. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That I understand. Thank you. 

MR. ALVARADO: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you brief me on the Department's 
program on Proposition 99 funds? We've had a continuing 
dispute, you know, over the last two or three years which 
resulted in a couple of lawsuits to prevent the diversion beyond 
those authorized by the legislation carried by Assembly 
Isenberg. In both cases, the local Superior Court ruled in 
favor of the critics of the diversion. 

It looks like we still have, sprinkled here and 
there, different diversion efforts, which I have vigorously 
opposed all the way through. One of the more recent ones has to 
do with the research part of the funds, 20.6 million to the 
University of California. Senator Bergeson carried a bill on 
that to restore those funds for that purpose, and the Governor 
vetoed it. 

So, I would like you to tell me, to the extent that 
you know, what is the current policy of the Department on these 
various diversions? 



58 

MR. ALVARADO: Senator — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Particularly the one on education? 

MR. ALVARADO: Education into the — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me, it's under the overall 
education title, but it's specifically research by the 
University of California. 

MR. ALVARADO: All right. 

Senator, I think the position of the Department, and 
I'll speak on what I know about it, is that the diversions are 
within the scope of Prop. 99, and that when funds are moved 
about, and when they are diverted, that they are done so 
consistently with Prop. 99. 

I understand, as you're saying, that the courts have 
ruled — 

SENATOR PETRIS: The courts disagreed with that. 

MR. ALVARADO: — otherwise, and so, I think one in 
particular that I believe you're interested in is the health 
assessments in the education fund that goes for the Health 
Assessments Program. I think that's one that we are willing and 
certainly would like to evaluate to determine the effectiveness 
of that particular diversion. 

In terms of providing that particular diversion 
there, we believe that through health assessments, some 
education does belong, from the provider's standpoint, to the 
particular patient in terms of letting them know about the risks 
associated with tobacco and its use. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think the record shows 
rather clearly that the overall program of Prop. 99, as 



59 

administered by the Department, in public education and 
educating the school children — I've been to classes in my 
district in which the teacher carried out that function and 
asked the children questions, and they're remarkably well 
informed about what tobacco is, and what the dangers are, and so 
forth. 

It's undoubtedly the most effective program in the 
country. It's resulted, through a combination of these 
programs, including the radio and t.v. advertising and other 
forms of informing and educating the public, in a dramatic drop 
in the number of people smoking, especially among teenagers, who 
are the ones that are the age of where they first start, 
although more recently that's gone up again. 

And I get nervous when I hear that, well, we're going 
to divert it from that demonstrated, very effective part of the 
program and put it over here, in an area that doesn't come under 
it. It seemed to me it didn't come under 99 at all, as good as 
they are, prenatal and perinatal and some other things. 

I guess there is a long-range medical connection, but 
not an immediate one. 

So, I'm not up to date on just what the current 
projections are that the Department wants to do, especially in 
view of the fact that, in some of these, it would invite 
litigation all over again, and we've been through that a couple 
of times. 

Maybe that's not in your part of the shop; is it? 

MR. ALVARADO: It is; however, Ms. Cain, I think, 
could probably address your concerns about Prop. 99 in 



60 

particular. She — that is one of her major assignments, is 
Prop. 99. 

I think in general, though, Senator, one of the good 
and bad points about Prop. 99, of course, is that we see the 
revenues declining. And hopefully, that means that fewer and 
fewer individuals are smoking. 

At the same time, I appreciate very much your 
concerns about the effective use of scarce resources in making 
sure that we ' re doing everything we can to make sure that people 
learn about tobacco and its use. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is realignment, restructuring, of 
state and local part of your universe? 

MR. ALVARADO: It is, Senator. Jeanne Cain and I 
share that, along with Secretary. She's very interested in that 
herself. 

Part of my responsibility, and I've had the 
opportunity to work at the federal level, at the White House as 
special assistant to the President for governmental affairs, and 
at the county level , and now at the state level , so I think that 
the whole issue of realignment is one that falls particularly in 
my interest in how we realign these days of scarce revenues and 
making sure that the programs are efficient as possible. 

It is an issue. It is a portfolio that the Secretary 
herself, as I mentioned, is very interested in. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who did you work directly for in 
Washington? 

MR. ALVARADO: Directly, I was appointed by President 



61 

Reagan. I worked directly for Mr. Meese, and then Mr. Baker 
after that. I'm sorry, Mr. Baker and then Mr. Meese. Ed 
Rollins was the head of the department for awhile. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm curious, who was the 
benefactor? I don't know the right descriptor, other than 
rabbi, mentor, the person that helped shoe-horn you into the 
Washington work. Usually there's someone that pulls you along 
with them. 

MR. ALVARADO: Sure. I can tell you briefly, if I 
could, and then if you'd like me expand, I shall. 

At the time I was working, for then-Supervisor Smoley, 
she was the President of the National Association of Counties. 
As such, she had a national role to play in addition to her 
responsibilities here in Sacramento County. 

The individual who asked me to come back to 
Washington for the interview was a gentleman named Lee 
Verstandic, who at that time — this was in August, I suppose, 
of ' 84 — was the advisor to the President on intergovernmental 
affairs. He came out for a visit, here to Sacramento. 

We spent several hours together, talking about 
programs and issues, and my predecessor had decided that he 
wanted to go back to Phoenix after being in Washington for a 
number of years. And Mr. Verstandic called me and asked me if I 
would be interested, and I said I would be honored to come back 
and visit about the post. 

And that's really how it happened. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did I ask if there was anyone 
present, I think I did, that wanted to make any comment? Are 



62 

there further questions? 

I guess more intuitive than anything else, this 
appointment raises questions for me of how to balance the 
Governor's and Secretary's presumptive right to select the 
deputies that they would wish, with my own intuitions, which are 
that philosophically, I wouldn't want to vote for you. I don't 
have a lot of evidence to support that worry, and I guess with 
sufficient time to dig around, might come up with something. It 
may not matter anyhow, given the presumption of appointments 
that people are entitled to make. 

I express that worry for the record. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Craven moves the appointment be 
confirmed. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. ALVARADO: Thank you very much, Senator. 



63 

If I may, on that last point you made, I ' d be 
privileged and honored to come over any time and share with you 
any questions on my philosophy or anything. I really would. 
So, please call me, of I'll take the initiative to call you, if 
I may. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Okay, we have Ms. Cain next. You're the one that's 
going to respond to . Senator Petris ' s inquiries about Prop. 99, I 
think. 

MS. CAIN: Of course. 

Good afternoon. My name is Jeanne Cain. 

I'd like to take a few minutes to share with my 
qualifications for the position. 

I've had the pleasure, for the last 15 years, to work 
on health and welfare issues. I've worked as a program analyst 
in the Department of Social Services on in-home supportive 
services program. 

I've worked in the Department of Finance as a budget 
analyst. I did the public health budget. 

I worked on the — as a consultant in the Assembly 
Minority Ways and Means Committee . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who was the — 

MS. CAIN: Assemblyman Baker. 

And I worked as a legislative coordinator in the 
Health and Welfare Agency. And since December 1st, I've 
functioned as the Deputy Secretary for Health and Welfare 
Agency . 

I've had some successes; successes in that I staffed 



64 

the bill that created the Medi-Cal drug rebate program that 
Mr. Baker carried. I've worked with Assemblywoman Speier on 
child support bills. I was part of a team that looked at 
changing or making some changes in the health care reform arena. 

I think from that, the most notable is our HIPC, the 
Health Insurance Plan of California. And we've actually 
expanded access to those who could not achieve or get insurance 
by 20 percent of our enrollees in HIPC. 

So, that's some background, a track record. 

And whether this was a good thing for Senator Petris , 
I worked for Assemblyman Baker on the initial authorization of 
Prop. 99. I worked for the Managers Medical Insurance Board for 
the first re-authorization, and now working on the second 
re-authorization. And hopefully, I won't have to work on the 
third re-authorization. It's been a very daunting task. 

And in fact, I believe the conference committee is 
meeting now — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: By second, you mean now or — 

MS. CAIN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is the second? 

MS. CAIN: I believe it's the second, so I've done 
this three times from the very beginning. 

So, I am requesting support for my confirmation. I'd 
be happy to answer your questions . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present that 
wanted to express any opinions? 

MS. KEESLAR: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Karen Keeslar on behalf of the California Nurses 



65 

Association. 

Sometimes the nurses have won in working with Jeanne 
Cain; sometimes the nurses have lost in our work with Jeanne 
Cain, but always the process is fair, thorough, and above-board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When did you lose? 

MS. KEESLAR: When did I leave? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Lose. 

MS. KEESLAR: When did we lost. Actually, this year 
we haven't specifically lost. There' ve been a couple of things 
dealing with medical assistance, a Burton bill, that we had 
asked for the Agency ' s support . 

There have been some issues on the Clinical Lab 
Improvement Act that we've worked with the Agency. Those are 
still things under negotiations . 

What we have found very consistently is that she 
listens and inspires state bureaucrats, who are buried in the 
bowels of these departments, also to listen as well with renewed 
skill. 

For those reasons , we would ask for your support . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anyone else present? 

Questions from Members? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You've been with IHSS since the 
beginning, I gather. 

MS. CAIN: I worked — it was in the '70s for the 
in-home supportive services program. I was part of the group 
that implemented the automated payrolling system, so it's been 
quite a few years. 

I know the program, the eligibility, the clients, and 



66 

■ 

how counties administer the program, and how we reimburse 
individual providers. So, I've had some history with SCIU, 
working on those issues. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's taken a beating in the budget 
this year; hasn't it? Is there anything left of it? 

MS. CAIN: Well, the in-home supportive services 
program has not received any reductions in the budget, because 
we — under realignment, we transferred the funding for in-home 
supportive services, so it has not had any reductions in the 
budget . 

Are you thinking of the realignment or restructuring 
concerns? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't remember the mechanism, but 
consistently in the last two weeks, I've seen IHSS pop up as 
taking a real beating. I don't remember the dollar figure. 

MS. CAIN: There was two issues that came up in 
January. One was the restructuring, and there was some concern 
that the state would walk away from taking care of the clients. 

And the other was, in January, we proposed 
substituting federal funds for general funds for the provision 
of services by relative providers . 

Right now, we would have to have a federal law change 
to permit to use federal funds to reimburse relative providers . 
In order to reduce or save general funds, we've proposed going 
for a federal law change. 

It as in May we withdrew that proposal, because we 
found that when we looked at the — the assumptions had changed. 
We weren't going to get a federal law change. We did not want 



67 

to lose these — this group, this family, providing a service, 
so we withdrew that proposal . 

And as late as June, I know I was preparing letters 
for the Secretary's signature to make it clear we withdrew that 
proposal . 

That might have been what you're referencing. There 
was still some confusion over that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Does the federal law prohibit the 
payment of family member? 

MS. CAIN: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We've been doing that for years. 

MS. CAIN: Through Title 19. So, what we've done is, 
for the majority of our program, we fund it through Title 19 
Medicaid law, and it's under personal care services. 

And for whatever reason, the limitations of the 
Medi-Cal program are significant at the federal level, and they 
preclude the reimbursement of family as a provider for services. 

So, we did anticipate drawing down federal funds for 
that, but decided we could not risk losing those providers, and 
we withdrew that proposal . 

SENATOR PETRIS: But our state program isn't limited 
to those under Medi-Cal; is it? 

MS. CAIN: No, we have a residual program, and we've 
not made any budget reductions to that program. It stayed the 
same. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What proportion of that is that of 
the total? 

MS. CAIN: I don't remember. I can get that for you. 



68 

It's not very much. It's a pretty small program now, because 
we've tried to maximum federal funds wherever possible, and for 
the large majority of the cases, we've done that for IHSS. 

SENATOR PETRIS: This isn't a matter of a waiver; you 
actually have to get the law changed? 

MS. CAIN: Exactly. It's not waiveable, which is why 
we withdrew it. We were not getting any positive signals, and 
that created great concern for the families. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You mean signals from Congress? 

MS. CAIN: Yes, they were not responsive. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you tried Congressman Stark? 

MS. CAIN: I 'm sorry? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you tried to get Congressman 
Stark's help in your efforts? 

MS. CAIN: What we did is, we worked all those 
proposals through the Department of Finance. They were the lead 
on trying to get federal law change. We had three individuals 
working on that: Kevin Sloat, Sam Yaki, Bill Hauck, who were 
our consultants going back to work with Congress. And they said 
drop it. We're not getting any positive response, and we were 
concerned about the program. So, we withdrew it in May, our May 
Revise. 

SENATOR PETRIS: No point in pursuing the names, but 
I thought Waxman might be helpful . 

MS. CAIN: Well, you know, I think it was, all the 
issues that were going on back there they wanted prioritized, 
and this one wasn't high enough, so we didn't want to pursue it. 
We wanted to make sure we protected the program. So, we went 



69 

ahead and moved off of that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mentioning Congressman Waxman brings 
up the tobacco fight. 

MS. CAIN: Yes, oh, yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you describe to me just where we 
are now on our program with respect to protecting, to the 
maximum extent possible, the 99 funds for the purposes they were 
originally intended, especially on research. You heard the 
questions I'd asked previously? 

MS. CAIN: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you help me on that? 

MS. CAIN: I sure can. 

In January, when we released the budget, we had 
proposed basically the same structure that had been contained in 
the initial Prop. 99 expenditure plan and the re-authorization, 
and that is with two changes: eliminating the mountain lion 
initiative, which we were using those f reed-up resources to fund 
caseload increases for the CHTP program. And the reason we did 
that was to take the pressure off the Health Education Account. 

We did not deviate much from the prior proposal. So 
your concerns that you've had, I can imagine, since the 
beginning are still there. 

We recommend — and conference committee met this 
morning while I was here, and I think they're still meeting, to 
take actions on the tobacco expenditure plan — would propose 
to fund that 29 million of the Health Education Account for the 
CHTP program. 

Now, I think what I've tried to talk about when 



70 

people have expressed concern is that we do have an anti-tobacco 
education message in that program. I think where we differ is, 
do you believe that's successful? And I don't have any evidence 
to say that it isn't, and I'm willing, over the next two years, 
to evaluate it. 

And when we have the sunset — because we ' re 
proposing a two-year sunset — that we start all over, because I 
think the revenues — because we're also so successful with our 
media campaign in our local media agencies, and our community 
organizations, and schools. This revenue should decline 
significantly. That was the point of the initiative. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I understand it has. 

MS. CAIN: It has. And I think it will continue to 
decline, and then in two years, we have to start all over. I'm 
not even sure — 

SENATOR PETRIS: If you succeed, it'll self-destruct; 
won't it? 

MS. CAIN: And I hope it does because that's the 
whole point. 

But in the process of doing that, it becomes 
difficult to negotiate an expenditure plan, because individuals 
and organizations have built programs around a certain amount of 
revenue. So, the struggle you're seeing is a struggle of 
scarcity of resources. And I think in two years, and we've 
recommended this, and we've testified to this in committee, we 
need to evaluate all the expenditures, not just CHTP, all of 
them. 

And let's make a decision — in two years, I can tell 



71 

you. And what I can't tell you now is what's successful. We 
have anecdotal information, but nothing specific. 

So, I can't even make a recommendation to you that I 
feel confident is reflective of what's going on. So, we have to 
provide that information. In two years, you should be able to 
say: yes, that works; no, that doesn't; we can't fund that. 
And that ' s our goal . 

SENATOR PETRIS: But the moves are still being made. 
There's at least one bill floating around, maybe two, that 
supports diversion even further. 

I'm told they're not worried about the four-fifths 
requirements. How do you get around that, anyway? 

MS. CAIN: I think the most recent budget decisions, 
where we ' re going to divert research funds to fund a health 
program in Health Services, the Access for Infants and Mothers 
program, the AIM program, we are redirecting — we, and I do it 
the royal "we" — are redirecting funds for evaluating. 

As of Friday, and I have not seen the bill, but so 
far, it's still a two-thirds vote bill. I don't know by 
including the budget decisions what happens to the dynamic of 
the vote. I would defer to Leg. Counsel. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How do you get from four-fifths to 
two-thirds, is my question? 

MS. CAIN: The issue traditionally, with the 
authorization and re-authorizations, it's always been a 
two-thirds vote bill. Even with using Health Education money 
for CHTP, Leg. Counsel's always tagged it as a two-thirds vote 
bill. 



72 

With the latest changes, I don't know if that will 
change the Leg. Counsel recommendation. You know, when they put 
it on the bill, vote, it's always been two-thirds. 

I have not seen the bill in print to know if it 
changes the vote . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Last night we had a measure on the 
Floor to simply borrow money from Prop. 99. 

MS. CAIN: The Controller's — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. That required four-fifths. 

MS. CAIN: Did he get it? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. And that, you know, we're 
going to pay interest on that . 

So, how can we require four-fifths where they're not 
losing a dime, and go back to two-thirds for much more serious 
changes? I don't understand that. 

MS. CAIN: I think the difference is, it's over the 
interpretation, and this — I'm not an attorney, so I will use 
my layman's terms — is that the initiative provides for a vote 
by the Legislature to amend provisions of the initiative 
consistent with its intent. Key words: its intent. 

There are five principles of Prop. 99. It's health 
education, research, resources, hospitals services, physician 
services . 

And where we get in a discussion of the issue is, if 
you provide funds from any account that is consistent with any 
of the principles of the initiative, is that permitted by the 
initiative. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's a two-thirds if it is? 



73 

MS. CAIN: We say it is, because it's still 
consistent with the intent. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Four-fifths is inconsistent? 

MS. CAIN: It would be changing the purposes of the 
article. 

Again, I'm not an attorney, and so when I'm debating 
this, you'll tell that I don't have the legal background. 

But that's been a struggle. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I guess we'll have to ask 
Counsel, also. My understanding, and I haven't read it for a 
long time, but my understanding was, number one, any change 
that's made by the Legislature must be consistent with the 
primary purposes, whether it goes four-fifths, or whatever the 
vote is. It still has to be consistent. 

MS. CAIN: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It seems to me, if there's a move 
that's inconsistent, there's even more reason to stick with 
four-fifths than in the other cases. 

MS. CAIN: I think the inconsistency issue gets you 
into issues with the court, and so we fight over: is this 
consistent, yes; now what's the vote required. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The court has said both times you're 
going in the wrong direction. 

MS. CAIN: They have not ruled on the CHTP piece, if 
my memory serves me correctly. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't have any recollection there. 
All I know is, it's two-for-two so far in the other direction. 

Thank you. 



74 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any other questions from Members? 

You've been there since November? 

MS. CAIN: December 1st is when I was sworn in, and 
part of it, I had been the prior three years as the legislative 
coordinator for the Agency, worked on, obviously, the 
legislative bills, and testifying, and making recommendations to 
the Governor's Office. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Telling us why something's going 
to get vetoed. 

MS. CAIN: Yes, and we share letters. We make calls 
so Members know our position. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's been the hardest part of 
the job since your promotion? 

MS. CAIN: Changing from being in a legislative role 
to a program fiscal role. Because I had worked for Assemblyman 
Baker, and worked as a leg. person, you have — you look at 
things — you have a different schedule, a different type of 
workload, different type of paper. 

So now, I'm trying to switch into more the routine, 
day-to-day things that come up, and I've got much more involved 
in the budget, which I prefer. I think that's my Department of 
Finance background, and I miss Ways and Means every so often. 
Not the hours, but just the involvement and the excitement when 
you try to make things work. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator? 

SENATOR PETRIS: May I go back? I forgot one area. 

I was reminded when you mentioned fiscal, and you 
said there are fiscal responsibilities. 



75 

There seems to be a major disparity in the estimates 
of the cost of health care, various plans. And your 
Department's estimate differs very substantially from those made 
by Rand Corporation, the Congressional Budget Office, and our 
own Legislative Analyst. And they're all studying the same 
thing. 

I had two questions. One is, how do you explain the 
very big difference? 

And the other is, in the fiscal studies that the 
Department has made, has a single pay system been studied for 
that purpose? 

MS. CAIN: Okay. The answer to the first question 
is that I think we have — we used information that maybe either 
other individuals have not thought of. You know, EDD has 
information on the types of employers in the state, their 
average wage. Then you can actually do statistical runs to try 
to determine how much a subsidy would cost given the type of 
workforce we have . 

And in California, we have — our economy's changing, 
and we have the service type industry, which has lower wages, 
which would be more eligible for the subsidies. 

So, I think some of it is, we used information that 
either others had not asked for or have considered. I think 
that's the major reason. 

In terms of the single payer, we've looked at the 
impact of the single payer from both the administrative savings, 
which you would save if you converted to a single payer system 
because you get rid of the third party, the insurance companies, 



76 

et cetera. 

And we counter that with, okay, we know those are 
savings, and that's very important. But what is the impact of 
the tax changes that would be required for the single payer? 
And our concern is that — and this is more than just our 
Agency. It's the administration, because we worked with other 
entities besides the Health and Welfare Agency — is the impact 
of the payroll tax on business. Will they leave California? 
Will they not come into California? 

If we have a higher income tax on individuals, we 
have the highest wage earners leaving California now. Will we 
push more of them away? We need those people to pay the taxes 
so we can support the programs to help those who can't help 
themselves . 

So, when I look at things, I worry that if we don't 
maintain some revenue, I'm not gong to have the funds, because 
we have a large portion of the general fund budget, to take care 
of the aged, the blind, disabled, for health care, preventative 
care. 

And so we looked at it from that perspective, and we 
struggle. We don't have the answers, but when we look at it, 
what we would prefer, and we've pursued this, is a targeted 
approach, trying to find the weaknesses in our system and fix 
those before we make such a massive change, because we're unsure 
of the tax impact of the massive change. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I don't want to prolong this, 
but I'm interested because the single payer has qualified for 
the ballot. 



77 

MS. CAIN: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And I would hope you'd be studying 
that and informing the public as to what you find out. 

Now, I have found out, in carrying that legislation, 
and talking to companies, that the payroll tax is lower than 
most companies that carry insurance. The problem is, an 
enormous number, especially the small ones, don't carry any, and 
they're part of the problem. 

But among those that carry it, when we asked them, 
"Would you support a bill that had a payroll tax of seven 
percent?" We tried to stay at five, but we went up to seven, it 
was half; it was half of what many of the large companies are 
paying. They're going fourteen. And they said, "Show me a plan 
that is limited to that amount, and I ' d be delighted to support 
it," which conflicts with some of the conclusions that have been 
reached by people who are studying it now. 

MS. CAIN: I think that we agree that for large 
companies who provide insurance, they would have a reduction. 

It is the small employer, and the service employers, 
who don't have it, and so the burden, if you want to call it a 
burden, of the costs that's placed upon them, and that is the 
fastest growing sector in terms of creating jobs, are small 
business . 

So, before we contemplate changing the system 
wholesale, are we sure that the tax that we put on the small 
business, who are the ones creating the jobs, will not turn 
around and either have them leave or stop the job growth. And 
we need that job growth to keep our — the strength of our base. 



78 

SENATOR PETRIS: I can understand that, but just in 
closing, what I've tried to do in my bill, especially with the 
title, which is called the Right to Health Care Act, we take it 
for granted that the small business person has to pay the rent 
on the building, and has to meet certain other standing 
obligations, overhead and all that, including minimum wage. 

I'm trying to get the mindset changed so that has to 
be included — the package also covers health care — under the 
notion that we must have a universal system, and that 
everybody's entitled to health care, and, of course, will be 
required to pay into it. It's not a free program. 

Anyway, thank you. I appreciate your comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other comments? Questions? 
What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 
Beverly. Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 



79 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MS. CAIN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Good luck. 

Our last one is Mr. Michael Mayer. I think this is 
fairly brief. It's the Teachers Retirement Board. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. MAYER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of 
the Committee . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just call Members' 
attention to Tab 8 . 

Your particular slot, sir, is what kind of expertise? 

MR. MAYER: The banking or savings and loan official. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And, of course, that's where 
you ' ve been working for years . 

I make note that there's no opposition that's been 
received. 

Do you want to add anything briefly, sir, about the 
job, and why you like it? 

MR. MAYER: I've been involved in commercial banking 
for 15 years, and the challenges of a commercial banker with 
fiduciary responsibilities for accepting deposits and investing 
are similar to those of a Board member for STRS. And those 
being equal, I believe I have the ability and the willingness to 
accept those challenges. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 

Anyone present that wishes to comment? 

What ' s the pleasure? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 



80 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 
Beverly. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Three to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. Good luck. 

There is a call on. We could lift that, if you wish 
This is Mr. Going. It's currently two-to-one, so call the 
absentees . 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. It carries three to 
one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That measure is passed. 
Congratulations, sir, or condolences, whichever is appropriate. 

I think we probably ought to take a break, partly to 
allow Senator Petris time to review some of the materials that 
we discussed earlier. We'll try to resume at 2:00 o'clock. I 
don't think we'll be more than half an hour when we get back. 

Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon a luncheon recess was taken.] 



81 

AFTERNOON PROCEEDINGS 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: May we jump back to Russ Gould 
now. 

Mr. Gould we left off, I guess, principally with 
Senator Petris wanting a chance to review Committee documents . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I looked through them. I 
didn't get to really study them, having been besieged by a 
number of things, but I want to at least cover the two areas I 
mentioned and maybe one other. 

The first is on the — let's go to the second one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You had the land purchases, and 
you had the four-tenths curies waste stream. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What I was thinking of was the 
purchase, which I indicated seems to be an unusual way to go . I 
ended by saying that according to my recollection, the normal 
procedure when the feds have some surplus land, they either give 
it to the state if the state proves it qualifies as a land 
creditor, where the feds still owe us some land that they 
haven't released. And in that case, they give it to the state, 
or there's an outright direct sale. 

But I don ' t know why you ' re going through this other 
mechanism of having a private company buy it and then get credit 
through the fees that it will be paying over a period of time. 
Can you explain that for me? 

MR. GOULD: I'll try to, Senator. 

I looked into the history of it after you mentioned 
what the issue was, and it actually goes back to 1986. 



82 

And apparently the original agreement that was 
reached with the selected contractor, which was U.S. Ecology, is 
that all developmental costs for the site would be borne by the 
contractor. And then the contractor would be reimbursed by the 
disposal fees they charged on people who were disposing of 
waste. 

So, that was always envisioned as part of the 
contractual agreement with the selected vendor or contractor. 

I think you're correct. Initially the contract was 
to go through an indemnity selection process, which is the issue 
where the federal government still owes the state land. And I 
think it goes back to 1852, and it has to do with provisions 
where we still are to be deeded additional school lands . 

That acquisition has to go through the State Lands 
Commission. The State Lands Commission withdrew the application 
for indemnity selection, and so the Department of Health 
Services said, well, then, we will do a direct purchase. 

The purchase and the title would have been to the 
Department of Health Services, but consistent with the MOU 
arrangement that was arranged in 1986, the monies would be 
provided for by the vendor for the purchase, but it would 
actually be title held by the Department of Health Services. 

And so, the whole idea was that the state wouldn't 
incur costs, because this is a function where all costs were to 
be absorbed by those using the facility, and therefore have all 
costs paid for by those who would deposit waste at the facility. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand that in the 
reimbursement, they've included promotional costs that really 



83 

aren't normally — you know, they're kind of their own 
promotional and advertising costs, and there are a couple other 
items which I don't recall at the moment. But one of the 
questions is, why are those being included? They should be 
absorbed by the contractor. 

MR. GOULD: I'm not familiar with that at all. 

Senator, I'll be glad to look into it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Let's see if I can find it here. 

MR. GOULD: This is certainly not a Department of 
Finance issue at this point, but I'd be glad to have, you know, 
notify appropriate parties to have them respond to that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I failed to mark it, so I'll need a 
couple of seconds here to pin it down. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know if you had an 
opportunity to talk with the Deputy Director during our break, 
your appointee on Public Works . 

Any new information on that subject or dispute? 

MR. GOULD: Yes, in fact, we're putting together a 
chronology that goes through how there was actually a 
notification to the Legislature, override, even entire 
chronology. 

I hope to be able to put that together and provide 
the Rules Committee all an explanation of exactly what 
transpired. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That would be helpful. I know 
there's plenty of other things happening, but if it's possible 
by Thursday, I think it would be constructive for the Floor, if 
it's do-able. 



84 

MR. GOULD: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala had similar 
thoughts . 

SENATOR AYALA: May I ask that you include in that 
report the situation where Senator Boatwright indicated that, 
although the Legislature approved 3.5 million [sic], you ended 
up with 44 million. I don't think it went into retrofitting, 
but for a new building; is that what I understand? 

MR. GOULD: I don't know, Senator. I haven't had a 
chance to look into it. 

SENATOR AYALA: Who authorized and how it came about 
that they were able to increase the amount that the Legislature 
approved without coming back. 

I know changes that come everytime of a construction 
project, but the contract of its own doesn't do it. They come 
back and get authorization from the governing board, whoever 
that may be. 

In this case, I don't know who that would be. Maybe 
it was your office that had that authority; I don't know. But 
would you give us a full report on that? 

MR. GOULD: I'll make sure that's included in the 
response. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I have it 
here. 

According to project opponents, a number of 
questionable expenses have been incurred by U.S. Ecology for 
which they seek reimbursement. 



85 

I wouldn't call them questionable expenses unless 
they ask us to pay for it. If they're asking us to pay, I think 
it's questionable. 

$101,000 to a public relations firm for public 
relations consulting, presumably on how to approach you or us. 
You know, part of that PR problem. 

Another one, 15,000 for preparation and delivery of 
expert testimony by a hydrology consulting firm during your 
confirmation hearings. I don't think that's appropriate at all. 

The next one is $1715 to a small company for 
materials for a U.S. Ecology-sponsored float for the City of 
Needles Annual Rodeo Parade. That seems out of line. 

These are probably coming to your attention for the 
first time, so I don't expect you to have an answer, but I would 
like you to check them out. 

MR. GOULD: I'll be glad to. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Then there's also undetermined 
amounts for the cost of litigation in the Third District Court 
pertaining to the adjudicatory hearing, to the issue of the 
adjudicatory hearing. 

So, the criticism is that the Department hasn't done 
enough to discourage U.S. Ecology from trying to make these kind 
of claims. I guess there hasn't been an ongoing monitoring or 
proper exchange. And apparently those kinds of expenses are 
still being incurred. 

So at the very least it ought to raise a flag of 
warning that they should be, assuming you concur that one or all 
of these are out of line, that they should be so advised, so 



86 

they don't keep submitting reimbursement claims for matters that 
really don't have anything to do directly with the development 
and operation. I'm not questioning those kinds of expenses. 

Another area has to do with, did you comment on the 
indirect purchase? You said you're going to check on that, too. 
The purchase of the land by U.S. Ecology as opposed to having 
the state purchase it directly, and then have them reimbursed. 

I don't understand that. Do they keep title after 
they purchase it? 

MR. GOULD: No. Title must be held by the Department 
of Health Services; it must be held by a government entity. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's what I thought. 

MR. GOULD: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So the question is, why are they 
playing this role in actually doing the buying? Are they our 
agents for that purpose? 

MR. GOULD: Well, I think from that start of the 
project back in 1986, as I understand the history, the state was 
not to incur costs. The costs were to be borne by people using 
the facility. So, people who had waste to dump at the facility, 
that they will bear the cost of any of the operation, including 
the land. 

I think the original thinking was, it was going to be 
done through indemnity selection, where there is no cost; it's 
merely the federal government fulfilling its obligation to 
provide land to the state. When that avenue was cut off, then 
the question of a direct purchase, but still the state was 
operating under the MOU with the contractor that there would be 



87 

no costs borne by the state. 

So therefore, the use of U.S. Ecology funds in order 
to provide for purchase, even though the title remains with the 
state, was appropriate in that it would be reimbursed by users. 
And so, keeping with the basic principle that the state wouldn't 
incur costs, it was in keeping with the contract and MOU. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I realize this happened way back in 
'86, and you weren't part of it. 

MR. GOULD: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So, I can make the questions very 
hostile without directing them at you; okay? 

Why in the world would they have an agreement that 
the state wouldn't have any costs? How does the state expect to 
be, if you know from what you've read, the state expects to be 
the owner of property for a particular reason. Why would the 
state expect to get it free, is what it amounts to, through this 
elaborate structure of reimbursing through the fee schedules and 
so forth. 

Do you have any clue on that? 

MR. GOULD: Frankly, I'd have to spend more time 
going back. Obviously, that was far before I was ever in that 
operation. I'd have to go back to some of the original 
legislation, and how we got to this point. 

I just don't have that much history on it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I ' d be interested in that. It may 
be very beneficial to the state, and I'll yield to that. But to 
me, I just don't understand what the object was, and so forth; 
why we're going about it in that way. 



88 

Now we have another area, which is the information we 
were given. As I said this morning, I don't want to retry the 
Ward Valley stuff, but inevitably we have to get into a little 
part of it at least. That has to do with information we were 
given at the time during your confirmation regarding the stream 
of dangerous substances, in this case plutonium, and the 
projections . 

Now, the information we were given was that there 
would be about four-tenths of a curie — Madam Eve Curie, I 
guess, is the source of that — four-tenths over a certain 
period of time, which was deemed to be safe either by the 
Department or whoever was making this study on behalf of the 
Department. And that may have been before your time, too; I 
don't know. It was done by Health Services. 

After the confirmation hearings were ended, I don't 
know just what point in time, but later on, we learned that 
there was a very serious underestimate in the EIR report. When 
the final EIR report was released, it indicated that instead of 
four-tenths of a curie, we're talking about 3,448 curies over 
the life of the facility. Now, that's 30 years, but that's the 
period of time that the other one was based on as well. 

The information also indicates that U.S. Ecology 
informed the Department of that several months before the 
release of the final EIR. 

We've got a very serious discrepancy here. The 
numbers are meaningful because they describe the degree of 
hazard, obviously. If four-tenths of a curie is okay and safe, 
that's fine. But when we're talking about almost 3500, that's 



89 

another matter. 

Now the question is, do you know any of this? Do you 
remember it? Did you have knowledge of it at the time? 

MR. GOULD: No, I didn't, but I've looked into it. 

I know that the issue surfaced — the first time I 
was aware of it — in a letter that Senator Boxer sent to the 
Governor, which was in April of this year. And I think it had 
to do with actions of the Department of Health Services in 
September of 1993. I was no longer Health and Welfare Secretary 
at the time, but let me explain. And I can provide you a copy 
of the Governor's response back to Senator Boxer that clarifies 
that issue. 

I should also say that this issue has been looked at 
in terms of the question of: did the Department in any way try 
to mislead or not provide sufficient information to the public, 
and that was reviewed by the Superior Court in Los Angeles , and 
it was determined that that claim was without validity. 

But in spite of that — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Which claim was that? 

MR. GOULD: The claim that the Department in any way 
intentionally misrepresented the amount of curies, because that 
information had actually been out in public for some years. It 
had been something that critics of the facility had raised 
concerns about, that having that much material in the site was 
of concern to them. So, it wasn't new information, nor a 
surprise. 

The difference really gets down to, the Department, 
as I understand it, had a very difficult time in estimating what 



90 

the total volume would be. And so, they took a very high 
estimate. In order to be conservative, they said: let's assume 
that it is 3,500 curies, when in fact the historical data that 
they had showed that it was going to be closer to .45 curies. 

But rather than — being that this was part of the 
license application, being this was out there already as the 
public statement as to what would be a safe facility, because 
they built the facility to specifications to hold 3,500. So the 
fact that our historical data looks like it is going to be 
substantially below that just meant that it was built to be very 
safe, and that in fact you'd be better overestimating and having 
a facility that could handle that capacity many times over, than 
in underestimating. 

And they didn ' t want to revise the data in order to 
avoid any lack of public confidence, that in fact it could 
higher a much higher number. 

So, this letter, I think, that the Governor wrote 
Senator Boxer may be instructive, because it really goes through 
all of that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm not familiar with the letter. I 
know there was some exchange there. 

Well, was the Department the lead agency responsible 
for preparing the EIR? 

MR. GOULD: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So it was in the EIR that this 
projection was made? 

MR. GOULD: I think, yes. I think it appeared in a 
number of cases. It has been in the public arena, I believe, 



91 

since 1990. It was part of the application. It's been out 
there as a number for sometime, so this was not a new number to 
people who are looking at the site. 

In fact, it had been one of the prime criticisms, 
that it was going to hold 3,500 curies, and there was concern 
about that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Now, another problem in connection 
with that, there was some language crossed out of the 3448 
report . I don ' t know where it was . I don ' t know whether it ' s 
sitting on a bulletin board somewhere, it's not clear to me, but 
it says: 

"Internal departmental records 

reveal that a chart showing this 

information was prepared for inclusion in 

the final EIR, but was crossed out with 

the word 'replaced, * . . . . " 
over it, by some unknown person in the Department. 

Now first of all, let me tell you, I do not expect 
that you would have any knowledge of that, because you're 
sitting at the top of the heap at that time, and it could be 
anybody, you know, from the top down to the very last level of 
rank, okay? But it did happen, and it did have some impact. 

So my question is: were you aware that this change 
was made? 

MR. GOULD: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: This is the first time you're 
hearing of it? 

MR. GOULD: This is the first I've heard of this 



92 



question. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So obviously, you didn't authorize 
it or approve it, since you didn't even know about it. 

MR. GOULD: No, I did not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you have any recollection as to 
any other role that you may have played? Did you, for example, 
have an opportunity to review those reports yourself to examine 
them as to the waste stream, and the volume, and how many 
curies, and all that? 

MR. GOULD: No, Senator. 

In trying to run the Health and Welfare Agency, with 
13 departments and a wide variety of programs, that's just not 
something that I had the opportunity to do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, one of the reasons I bring 
this up is that I didn't know anything about it before. It 
should have been something that we were told about at the time. 
Obviously, you didn't know it, but somebody in the Department 
must have known, and it does have a bearing on the whole issue 
that I don't want to get into, and that's the Ward Valley. 

I think that if these sums are accurate projections 
of what likely is going to happen, then everybody's going to get 
pretty alarmed about it. 

When we were looking at less than four-tenths of one 
curie, then over to this other enormous amount — 

MR. GOULD: Senator, let me — if I wasn't clear 
before, I just want to say that the four-tenths, the .45, 
hundredths, is the Department estimate on the volume that will 
occur. 



93 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. GOULD: So, they still believe that is a credible 
estimate. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm glad to hear that. I hope 
that ■ s the way it turns out . 

But when we get the specter of this other thousands, 
as you can see, it raises some question. 

It also affects the credibility of whoever presented 
this to you, whether it was done purposefully to mislead the 
Committee that was concerned about it, because, you know, we had 
several hearings and it went over a period of time, and there 
was a lot of criticism from the outside. 

So, it goes to the credibility of the whole 
presentation, from the staff, or experts, or whoever they were. 
So, I guess that will require a little further doing. 

Do you have all the information now that you need to 
check that out? 

MR. GOULD: Yes. What I'd like to do is to work with 
the Department of Health Services . I think they can be most 
responsive; they have direct responsibility for the issues. 

I will inform them and work with them to make sure 
that they understand the issues you're concerned about. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

That leads me to believe that maybe Secretary Gould 
will need some help. If you're the boss, sitting on top, and 
somebody down below pulls this caper, I don't expect you to be 
on top of that and ferret it out immediately. 

The only incentive that we have that we can see and 



94 

employ is that somebody higher up there in the scale is 
watching: I notice that we've got an eye on you, and we want to 
keep you honest, so to speak. 

It leads me to think that maybe we can help by having 
some kind of an oversight committee in the Legislature. I don't 
mean the Rules Committee, but maybe a select committee to 
oversee this, because the stakes are so high. That's the reason 
we've been concerned all along. 

I don't mean oversee Mr. Gould. I mean oversee the 
Ward Valley hazards, and how they're doing, and who's doing 
what. Perhaps we should consider that in the near future. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I concur. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I have one other subject that I 
couldn't telegraph to you before because I didn't think of it. 
I had forgotten. It's kind of a partisan thing, and when these 
things happen, the party that objects has some bad reactions and 
feelings . 

This has to do with a memorandum in February of last 
year from your Legislative Coordinator at that time, Mr. 
Carrigan. Apparently, it's a written memorandum on legislative 
coordination, policy on how to treat inquiries from Legislators, 
and the protocol recommended by him. 

I don't know whether this was actually adopted by you 
or what, but this is all I know. 

The protocol is, if you get a question from 
Legislators, the protocol is as following: you answer 
Republican Legislators first. I can understand that. If I were 
a Democrat in office, I might give a little priority to the 



95 

Democrats and their inquiries, but it doesn't look too good. 

The second is freshman Legislators; third is 
important committee members; and fourth is others as time 
permits, which would probably be me. 

I don't like that. I don't think it's very good 
policy. 

Now, I'd like to check into that, and let us know 
what you find out about that. Maybe you have a recollection 
now? 

MR. GOULD: I do, because it's something that I took 
very seriously. 

Unfortunately, I found out about that policy or 
written document by Mr. Carrigan on Saturday morning, reading 
the Sacramento Bee . I was not aware of that, but I take 
responsibility because it was my agency. So, if that occurred, 
I take responsibility for that. 

But I immediately, upon seeing that, sent a letter to 
Senator Roberti saying that was not my policy. I wanted to 
inform him that we were going to treat all Members of the 
Legislature the same. We have a responsibility to serve you 
all. 

There's a lot of information that you must have in 
order to deliberate the issues and to make sound judgments, and 
that we can best serve you by being straight forward, and being 
honest, and giving you the information you need. 

And so, we were not going to have any kind of 
priority setting of that nature, and I so tried to set the 
record straight . 



96 

I can get you a copy of that letter which was sent to 
the Legislature as soon as I found out about it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So your current policy is totally 
different from this suggested. 

I probably wouldn't have gone into it, except it 
triggered some memories in my mind. I had a lot of disputes 
with Governor Reagan, who probably had the worst of the 
stonewalling policies that I've seen here as Governor. He just 
told his people: if the Legislature asks you, you don't answer, 
period, even in committee, even though you're responsible for 
that particular assignment; you don't know nothing. That's how 
bad it was . 

It was very frustrating to us as Legislators, and I 
think it set back the harmonious process of government for quite 
a while. 

So, I see specters of this coming up, even though 
this is last year. 

So, I'm pleased that you clarified that, and you 
immediately repudiated it, and that's not your present policy. 
And I commend you for that. 

It's tough enough for us to get communication, even 
when we're all trying together. 

And the reason I hesitated to go into it originally 
is that my experience with you personally has been excellent. 
Whenever I've called on you, you've come over to the office, or 
we've talked about it on the phone, and you've put your people 
to work to get the information that's needed. I think that's 
the best way to go, and that's the way it should be. 



97 

I'm happy to say my experience with you has been just 
that, so I'm very pleased. 

But there's a massive number of people serving under 
you, and sometimes they misinterpret signals. I have in mind 
again when Governor Reagan became President, and one of his 
underlings declassified or upgraded tomato catsup as a vegetable 
to satisfy the requirements of Congress on nutritional programs 
for poor kids who weren't getting any meals at home. They were 
getting them at school . And it required a certain minimum 
number of vegetables. I think we all remember that. 

So, he just says, well, catsup is a vegetable. That 
takes care of that. 

And it turned out, when the Congress checked into it, 
this person was not a mean or evil person who was trying to 
undermine the program at the expense of the unfed children, or 
underfed. He thought that's what the boss wanted. And yet, he 
had never talked to the boss, meaning the President. Just from 
public utterances, the image that he had of the President, hell, 
this is the way the President really wants to go, so we'll do 
it. 

So, I'm a little sensitive about how the signals go 
out, and how clear they are. 

So you said it very clear in this letter to Senator 
Roberti, and I think that takes care of that. 

Thank you. 

MR. GOULD: You bet. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions or comments? 



98 



Mr. Gould I would just mention again what Senator 
Petris concluded with, that I've always appreciated the 
excellent relationship and quick responsiveness of you 
personally and your office. 

There are, obviously, some Senators that are less 
than happy, and while I think that the confirmation will be 
concluded this week, so there won't be that hammer, they'll 
figure out some other way to make your life miserable if there 
aren't complete follow through on some of the matters we 
discussed earlier. 

What ' s the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Are you ready to act? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move approval of the confirmation, 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. Call the roll, 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Would you leave the roll open for 
Senator Craven? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, we'll leave it on call so 



99 



that Senator Craven can vote. 

MR. GOULD: Thank you very much. 

[Thereafter, the roll was opened 
and Senator Craven voted in favor 
of the Gould confirmation; the 
final Committee vote was 5-0.] 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
2:47 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



100 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing partial transcript of the Senate Rules Committee 
hearing was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn Mizak, 
and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

, y^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this / L day of July, 1994. 




EVELYN ^J^IIZAK $ 
Shorthand Reporter 



ooti i S i'&H 



101 



THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

BAKERSFIELD • CHICO • DOMINGUEZ HILLS • FULLERTON • HAYWARD • HUMBOLDT • LONG BEACH 
SACRAMENTO • SAN BERNARDINO • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SAN JOSE • SAN LUIS OBISPO 




SYSTEM 



LOS ANGELES 
*l SAN MARCOS 



NORTHRIDGE • POMONA 
SONOMA • STANISLAUS 



Trustees 

Ex Officio 

Pete Wilson 
Governor 

Leo T. McCarthy 
LL Governor 

Willie L.Brown, Jr. 

Speaker of 

the Assembly 

State Superintendent 
of Public Instruction 

Barry Munitz 
Chancellor 

Appointed 

Jim Considine 
Chairman 

Martha C. Fallgatter 
Vice Qiairman 

Roland £. Arnall 

Marian Bagdasarian 

William D. Campbell 

Ronald L. Cedillos 

Bernard Goldstein 

James H. Gray 

Claudia H. Hampton 

William Hauck 

Christopher A. Lowe 

Jean Otomo-Corgel 

Ralph R. Pesqueira 

Ted J. Saenger 

J. Gary Shansby 

Michael D. Stennis 

Anthony M. Vitti 



June 28, 1994 

The Honorable Bill Lockyer 
President pro Tempore 
California State Senate 
State Capitol, Room 205 
Sacramento, California 95814 

Dear Senator Lockyer: 

It was an honor to appear before the Senate Rules Committee 
Monday to discuss the confirmation of my appointment to the 
Board of Trustees of the California State University. I appreciated 
the candor and thoroughness of the hearing, and enjoyed the 
give and take of the proceedings. 

As you, Senator Petris and I discussed after the hearing, this letter 
serves to highlight some of the issues that I have been involved in 
as a Trustee that will illustrate my independence and style, but 
most importantly, the conviction that my role is to view the 
students first and foremost as the primary consumer in the 
California State University. 

You will no doubt recall that my service on the Board of Trustees 
has actually spanned two different periods of time. My first 
appointment came in 1989, and expired in 1992. I was 
subsequently reappointed after about a year and a half in 1993, and 
it is the confirmation of that appointment that is before you at this 
time. 

In my first year on the Board, the controversy regarding former 
Chancellor W. Ann Reynolds erupted, and involved the 
inappropriate manipulation of the procurement laws for the 
purchase of several automobiles so that their acquisition would not 
have to become public or go to competitive bid, and the substantial 
increase in executive salaries that was orchestrated in closed 
session amongst the Board leadership without the consent or 
knowledge of the full Board. I objected strenuously and publicly 
about these actions, and eventually chaired the special personnel 
committee of the Board that investigated the circumstances 
surrounding these events, and lead to the subsequent resignation of 
Chancellor Reynolds in 1990 and the appointment of Interim 
Chancellor Ellis McCune. In addition, I supported the revocation 
of the executive pay raises that had been approved in private, and 
pushed for the process we now use that provides for compensation 
increases to be the subject of lengthy, and public, discussion. 



» Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802-4275 



Telephone: (310) 985-2638 



102 



Senator Lockyer 
June 28, 1994 
Page Two 



Later, I chaired the search committee that resulted in the hiring of Chancellor 
Barry Munitz, and fought for his appointment in the face of political opposition 
that had nothing to do with his qualifications for the office. There is broad 
agreement, I think, that my role in exposing the circumstances of the events that 
lead to the resignation of Dr. Reynolds, the appointment of Dr. McCune, and the 
search for and appointment of Dr. Munitz clearly establish my credentials as an 
independent, outspoken, and strong advocate on behalf of the students and 
taxpayers of California. This appointment made clear that under my leadership 
the board had become active, involved, and challenging, a tone that continues to 
this day. 

Even though I had the opportunity to move up from my elected Vice Chair 
position to serve as Chair of the Board, I chose not to accept that role, primarily 
because I wanted to maintain my independence, particularly during the difficult 
times that we were going through - both in the leadership of the California State 
University, and in the growing fiscal crisis that was just beginning to manifest 
itself in the early 1990's. 

A review of Trustee records will demonstrate that I have been an active, open, and 
independent Trustee, not influenced by political, administrative, or Trustee 
manipulation. I am proud of the role that I have played, and honored that I have , 
been given the opportunity to return to the service of the State of California as a 
member of the Board of Trustees of the California State University. It is my 
hope that I will once again receive the support of the Senate for my confirmation 
to a second term on the Board. 

Finally, and as I mentioned during my confirmation hearing, I have served in 
trustee-level roles for over 20 years in California - as past chair of the 
Commission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education and in 
governing board positions at Saint Mary's College, the University of San 
Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, Foundation. I believe that 
no commitment can be more important than our strong commitment to preserving 
high quality education for our citizens. 

If I may be any further service to you or provide any additional information, 
please do not hesitate to contact me. 



rely yours, 



JGS:jc 

cc: Members, Senate Committee on Rules 




259-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 259^R when ordering. 



SEP 2 1994 



I 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 112 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1 994 
2:32 RM. 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 112 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1994 
2:32 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 
MEMBERS PRESENT 
SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 
SENATOR WILLIAM CRAVEN, Vice Chair 
SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 
SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY 
SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 
CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 
RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 
NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

ARTHUR CALDERON, Warden 

California State Prison at San Quentin 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

ANITA PEREZ, President, San Quentin Chapter 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

DAVID MARTIN, President, Sacramento-Folsom Chapter 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

JIM WARE 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

MARION J. WOODS, Sacramento Branch 
National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People 

JOHN R. COVINGTON, M.D., Chief Medical Officer 
California Rehabilitation Center 

FELIPE D. RUBIO, Correctional Lieutenant 

Chicanos for Justice 

California Rehabilitation Center 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued) 

ROBERT TAFOLLA 
Chicanos for Justice 
CIW 

DAVE TRISTAN, Deputy Director 

Institutions Division 

California Department of Corrections 

RICHARD HOWELL, Correctional Counselor II 
California Rehabilitation Center 

FRED W. MILLER, Chief Deputy Director 
Department of Social Services 

OVARIA SMITH 

Society of California Care Home Operators 

Los Angeles 

GEORGE K. WEBB, Elderly Care Provider 

Countrie Folke Home Care 

Oroville 

DERRELL KELCH, Vice President, Public Policy 
California Association of Homes for the Aging 

ELSA FUCANAN 
Fucanan Care Homes 
Danville 

WILLIE HAUSEY 

Society of California Care Operators 

ERLINDA LUNA, Administrator 
Corinthian Garden B&C 
Oroville 

NIMIA RENOVILLA 

Home Care Provider for Handicapped Children 

Concord 

KINGSTON PRUNTY, Warden 

California State Prison at Calipatria 

GEORGE MOSQUEDA, Program Administrator 
Department of Corrections 

VINCE NALEWAJA, Father of Michael Nalewaja 
Correctional Officer at Calipatria State Prison 

HECTOR LOZANO 

Jamestown Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 



IV 



APPEARANCES (Continued) 

DUNCAN FALLON 
Calipatria State Prison 

RICHARD BAILEY, President 
Calipatria State Prison Chapter 
CSEA 

PATRICIA BIAGINI, Co-Chairperson 

Calipatria State Prison Women's Liaison Council 

DON NOVEY 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

DAVID MOSCHETTI, Chapter President, Calipatria 
California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

LANCE CORCORAN, Chapter President, Susanville 
California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

DEBRA DEXTER, Assistant Chairperson 

Calipatria-El Centro Chapter 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

DON ROTHCHILD, Correctional Sergeant 
Calipatria State Prison 

CARL CRAMER, Food Manager 
Calipatria State Prison 

GLORIA ROSARIO, Correctional Officer 
California State Prison at Sacramento 



INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

ARTHUR CALDERON, Warden 

California State Prison at San Quentin 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Witnesses in Support: 

FRANK SEARCY 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 2 

ANITA PEREZ, San Quentin Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 3 

DAVID MARTIN, President 

Sacramento-Folsom Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 5 

JIM WARE 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 6 

MARION WOODS, Sacramento Chapter 

NAACP 6 

JOHN COVINGTON, M.D., Chief Medical Officer 

California Rehabilitation Center 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Opposition by DR. ARJONA 7 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Illegal Drug Use within Institution 8 

Proposals to Strengthen Security 10 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

FILIPE RUBIO, Correctional Lieutenant 

California Rehabilitation Center 

Chicanos for Justice 11 

Cases Overturned by State Personnel Board .... 12 

Nominee's Lack of Personal Integrity 12 



INDEX (Continued) 

Discrimination 13 

Affirmative Action 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Make-up of of Panel on Captains 

Interviews 14 

Familiarity with Investigations on 
Allegations of Sexual Harassment and 
Discrimination 15 

Tenure with Department of Corrections .... 16 

ROBERTO TAFOLLA 

Chicanos for Justice 

CIW 16 

Management Style of Intimidation 17 

Record of Escapes at Institution 18 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Warden's Impact on Escapes 18 

Witnesses in Support: 

DAVID TRISTAN, Deputy Director 

Institution Division 

California Department of Corrections 19 

Fiscal Management 19 

Investigation into Recent Escape at 

Institution 19 

Lack of Specificity in Testimony regarding 

State Personnel Board Actions 20 

Adverse Action Investigations 20 

Affirmative Action 21 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Result of Investigations on Sexual 

Harassment Charges 21 



Vll 



INDEX (Continued) 

Investigations at Folsom Prison 22 

Actions Taken against Offending 

Individuals at Folsom 23 

Old Boys Network at Folsom 2 3 

Consistently Receive Complaints of 
Sexual Harassment in Department of 
Corrections 23 

Investigations into Allegations of 

Sexual Harassment at San Quentin 24 

Explanation of "Cultural Problem" Found 

during San Quentin Investigation 26 

Actions of Director to Stopping 

Unacceptable Conduct and Improving 

Conditions at Institutions 27 

Numbers of Complaints since New Policies 

Have Been Instituted 29 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

All Officers Treated the Same 30 

Ranks of Investigators 30 

Inabilty to Root out Problems 31 

Statements by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Old Boys Network at Department of 

Corrections 33 

Lack of Communication 33 

Failure to Discern whether Allegations 

Have Meaning before Taking Action 34 

Questions by SENATOR CRAVEN re: 

Duties of a Correctional Captain 35 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Composition of Investigation Teams 36 



Vlll 



INDEX (Continued) 

Need to Have Outsiders on Investigative 

Teams 37 

Meaning of Affirmative Action 38 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Number of Investigations on Complaints 

Involving Nominee or Close Associates .... 39 

RICHARD HOWELL, Correctional Counselor II 

California Rehabilitation Center 40 

Responses by MR. CALDERON re: 

RUBIO: Interviews for Position of Captain .... 42 

TAFOLLA: Disrespectful Manner toward Women ... 43 

Escapes 44 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Allegations in Inmate's Lawsuit 44 

Boot Camp Program at San Quentin 46 

Hiring Practices 47 

Motion to Confirm 48 

Committee Action 4 8 

FRED MILLER, Chief Deputy Director 

Department of Social Services 4 9 

Background and Experience 49 

Witness in Support: 

OVARIA SMITH 

Society of California Care Home Operators 50 

Witness with Concerns: 

GEORGE WEBB 

Countrie Folke Home Care 

Oroville 53 

Description of Welfare People 53 



IX 

INDEX (Continued ) 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Disagreement with Comments 55 

Home Care Business 55 

Entrenchment of Centralized Planning 56 

Facility in Oroville 56 

Initiation of License Revocation Proceedings ... 57 

Initiation of Investigation by Deputy Director . . 58 

State Bureaucrats Allowed to Have Unilateral 

Power over Businesses 58 

Application for License for New Facility 59 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Administrative Hierarchy 61 

Familiarity with Circumstances in Oroville .... 61 

Witnesses in Support: 

DARRELL KELCH, Vice President, Public Policy 

California Association of Homes for the Aging 62 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Complaints from Residential Care 

Operators in Bay Area 63 

ELSA FUCANAN 

Fucanan Care Homes 

Danville 64 

Problems with Evaluators 65 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Complaints from Operators 68 

Poor Attitude of Inspectors 69 

Position in 1992 69 



X 



INDEX (Continued^ 

WILLIE HAUSEY 

Society of California Care Home Operators 70 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Computer Automation Projects 71 

SAWS Project 72 

Oversight Task Force 7 3 

SACS Project 74 

Problems with Vendor on Child Welfare 

Services Case Managment System 75 

Projects: On Schedule and On Budget 7 6 

ERLINDA LUNA, Administrator 

Corinthian Garden B&C 

Oroville 76 

Problems in Chico District 77 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Toughest Decision 7 8 

Hardest Decision while at Adult Services 7 9 

Disability Evaluation Case Backlog 80 

Reason for Staying in Same Policy Area 

for Entire Career 81 

NIMIA RENOVILLA, R.N. 

Home Care Provider for Handicapped Children 

Concord 82 

Motion to Confirm 84 

Committee Action 85 

Request by SENATOR PETRIS to Put Over Hearing 

on JACQUELINE SHAFER 85 

Discussion 85 



XI 



INDEX (Continued^ 

KINGSTON PRUNTY, Warden 

California State Prison at Calipatria 86 

Background and Experience 86 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

First Assignment at Tracy 87 

Witnesses in Support: 

GEORGE MOSQUEDA, Program Administrator 

California Department of Corrections 87 

VINCE NALEWAJA, Speaking on Behalf of Son MICHAEL 
Calipatria State Prison 89 

HECTOR LOZANO, Jamestown Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 90 

MARION WOODS, Sacramento Chapter 

NAACP 92 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Measurement of Warden's Efficiency, 

Effectiveness and Equitability 92 

Administrators that Should Not Be 

in Department of Corrections 92 

JIM WARE 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 93 

FRANK SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 93 

DUNCAN FALLON 

Calipatria State Prison 94 

RICHARD BAILEY, President, Local Chapter 

CSEA 94 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Ability to Notice Difference in 

Management Style 95 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Potential Problems with Paramilitary Structure . . 95 

Wardens of Old School Won't Be Confirmed 95 



Xll 



INDEX ( Continued 1 

PATRICIA BIAGINI, Co-Chairperson 

Women's Liaison Council 

Calipatria State Prison 96 

Witnesses with Concerns: 

DON NOVEY 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association . . 97 

Organization's Opposition to Opening 

Calipatria State Prison 98 

DAVE MOSCHETTI, Chapter President 

Calipatria Chapter 

CCPOA 99 

Examples of Employee Abuse .....' 99 

LANCE CORCORAN, Chapter President 

Susanville Chapter 

CCPOA 100 

Team of Chapter Presidents that Investigated 
Allegations at Calipatria 101 

Perception of Hostile Work Environment 101 

Lack of Response to Grievances 102 

Need for Outside Agency to Investigate Wardens . . 102 

Problems at Calipatria Indicative of 

Department of Corrections as a Whole 103 

Witnesses in Support; 

DEBRA DEXTER, Assistant Chairperson 

El Centro Chapter 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 103 

Problems at Calipatria since Beginning 104 

DON ROTHCHILD, Correctional Sergeant 

Calipatria State Prison 105 

CARL CRAMER, Food Manager 

Calipatria State Prison 106 

GLORIA ROSARIO, Correctional Officer 

Calipatria State Prison 106 



Xlll 

INDEX (Continued) 
Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Determinate vs. Indeterminate Sentencing 107 

Policy on Use of Weights in Prison 107 

Lingering Labor Problems at Institution 108 

Motion to Confirm 109 

Committee Action 110 

Termination of Proceedings 110 

Certificate of Reporter Ill 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00-- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Gubernatorial appointees, and 
first is Warden Calderon. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. CALDERON: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell us about yourself and your 
career, and why you like being Warden and want to stay there. 

MR. CALDERON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee 
Members . 

First of all, thank you for allowing me to appear 
before you today. 

I've been with the Department approximately 2 8 years. 
I think it was around August of last year I was was first 
approached with the idea of me possibly transferring to San 
Quentin. At that time I didn't give an answer right away. What 
I did say is, I'll get back to you. 

There was a lot of things that were going through my 
mind: did I really want to go through this confirmation process 
again, and did I really want to move to another institution 
since I had already been a warden for almost four years. 

The reason I decided to take the job at San Quentin 
is because this is my third time that I've worked at San Quentin 
over my 28 years. I came up through the ranks. I guess I fell 
in love with San Quentin in the early '70s when I worked there, 
and once you've worked at San Quentin, you never forget the 
place. Even with its many problems that it had at the time, I 
felt that I could do some good for the old place, and that I 



felt that my style of management would lend itself to San 
Quentin. 

And I just feel that I still have quite a few years 
left in this Department, and I just want to do what I can to 
work with the folks at San Quentin and to work with the 
Department of Corrections. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present that would 
wish to comment, first of all, either for or opposed? Please. 

MR. SEARCY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members 
of the Committee. 

I am Frank Searcy, Chicano Correctional Workers 
Association President. 

I'm here to offer our support for Mr. Calderon as 
Warden at San Quentin State Prison. We have known him to be a 
very dedicated individual, very dedicated employee. As he has 
stated, he has worked at San Quentin for several times over the 
years . 

We as an Association strongly support him, and I 
don't know of any reason why we would not support him. 

However, unfortunately, there are others that may be 
some opposed to this confirmation. We offer that as Warden, and 
Warden at where he is at now, that possibly he may have had some 
administrative difficulties. However, on the other hand, what 
administrator doesn't have problems? There are situations that, 
as we go along in our administrative duties, there are times 
when you have to undertake some discipline. And at times, that 
is where it's distasteful to the individuals involved. 

At this time also, at times we know that in our time, 



in our age right now, that there are situations that are very 
critical. And I don't think there's anyone that would ever 
advocate more than I the women's right and the sexual harassment 
in the workplace. 

But at the same time, I'm not minimizing that 
situation or those situations, I believe that right now, the 
situation has reached a level that at times, almost any look, 
any thoughts, any word can be mistaken, misconstrued, to be 
something that it's not. Unfortunately, I think even right now, 
probably someone is putting some thoughts and some complaint 
about me about some thought I may have in my mind along those 
lines . 

The point I'm trying to make, sir, is that it's very 
simple, it's very easy, to get caught up in these type of 
situations. However, on the other hand, like I mentioned at the 
beginning, our Association strongly endorses and offers our 
support to Mr. Calderon as Warden at San Quentin State Prison. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Next. 

MS. PEREZ: My name is Anita Perez. I am 
representing the San Quentin Chapter of the Chicano Correctional 
Workers Association. 

I thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of 
Warden Art Calderon. 

I have known Mr. Calderon for approximately 15 years. 
It was during this time that I have observed his decisive 
decision making skills and exceptional leadership qualities that 



contribute to the professional integrity of the California 
Department of Corrections. I've had the opportunity to work 
with Mr. Calderon on affirmative action issues in which his 
leadership and his expertise provided a plan of action to 
improve those areas of concern. His ability to work with 
concerned groups and address the issues of impartiality has 
encouraged favorable results . 

As a female working in the Department of Corrections, 
I appreciate Mr. Calderon' s tenacity in supporting women in 
Corrections. Mr. Calderon has afforded women the opportunity of 
training and development which has prepared us for the 
leadership responsibilities while creating a distinct precedence 
of an example for others to follow in the workforce throughout 
the Department of Corrections. 

There are those here in this room who may disagree 
with the aforementioned. However, as with all conscientious 
leaders, there are elements of adversity which seem necessary 
preparation for great duties. I believe personal indifference 
to the issues have clouded the reasoning and the real issues, 
and the real issue is that Mr. Calderon is supported by CCWA, 
and additionally is supported steadfastly by the San Quentin 
Chapter. 

I have seen Mr. Calderon 's long-standing support of 
the Hispanics. I have seen also Mr. Calderon ' s awareness of 
sensitivity to all ethnic groups. 

Therefore, those in this room who attempt to dishonor 
Mr. Calderon here at this hearing, I believe do so out of 
personal vindictive reasons. They do not represent CCWA, nor do 



they represent the Hispanics in the California Department of 
Corrections . 

I encourage each of you in this Committee to look at 
the congruency of performance of personal integrity of Mr. Art 
Calderon. This Committee will find a leader devoted to the safe 
working environment of his employees, who promotes and 
encourages professional integrity among his constituency. 

The confirmation of Mr. Art Calderon will clearly 
announce a message to all, and that message is: Mr. Calderon is 
a distinguished administrator who applies ethical principles of 
professionalism/ and an employee who is a servant of the 
California — people of California. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Next, please. 

MR. MARTIN: My name is Dave Martin, and I am the 
President of the Sacramento-Folsom Chapter of CCWA, the Chicano 
Correctional Workers Association. 

I have known Art, Mr. Calderon, for 24 years. As a 
prior administrator with the Department of Corrections, I worked 
with him at San Quentin when we were both administrators. His 
style of management is firm but fair. 

I've been on many conferences out of state, socially, 
with him, and with -- for Correctional conferences, and he has 
always handled himself as a gentleman. 

I've known his family. His family is very 
God-fearing. 

And the only thing that I can say is that his 



management style, being firm and fair, he has always treated all 
minorities in a fair manner. 

So, I urge the Committee to vote for Art, to confirm 
him for the Warden of San Quentin based on his management style 
and the years of dedicated service that he has given to the 
Department of Corrections. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Next. 

MR. WARE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. My 
name is Jim Ware I'm here on behalf of the Association of Black 
Correctional Workers. 

You have before you a letter which outlines our 
strong support for Mr. Calderon. We see him as a strong 
advocate of justice and fair play. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. WOODS: Mr. Chairman, I'm Marion Woods, 
representing the Sacramento branch of the NAACP. 

We have found Mr. Calderon to be a competent, able, 
professional administrator, and also effective and equitable in 
his administration. 

We urge confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

DR. COVINGTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm Dr. John Covington, 
the Chief Medical Officer at the California Rehabilitation 
Center, where I worked under the direction of Art Calderon. 

I'm here to support his nomination. I hired into the 
Department October 1st, 1991. Since that time, I've had a 



chance to work with four or five different wardens. I was on 
special assignment at Vacaville as Chief Deputy Warden for 
Clinical Affairs for three months; I've been assigned to Wasco 
State Prison, to Centinela State Prison, and just recently I 
returned from six weeks at Calipatria State Prison. So, I have 
interacted with several wardens. 

I found Mr. Calderon to be extremely fair, to be very 
understanding, and in our meetings, he always let others express 
their opinions . Not once in my time with Art Calderon did Art 
ever say to me, "I'm the Warden; this is how it's going to be." 
He always asked me, "What is your opinion? I'm not a doctor. I 
trust you to run things . " 

I've even asked him for things that would be more 
psychological than practical. He always agreed. For example, 
we were given the orders last year to TB test 4,800 inmates in 
our prison. Mr. Calderon said to me, "What do you want?" 

I said, "I need a show of strength because my staff 
in Medical are afraid to go into the housing dorms." 

Not only did he have his staff there, he himself 
walked around that day, with his AWs , as a show of force. And 
as a result, we tested those inmates in two and a half hours 
without any difficulty. 

I strongly support Mr. Calderon as a man of 
integrity, a gentleman, and a pleasure to work with. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Before you leave, sir, there's a 
letter, and I don't know if he's present, Dr. Arjona had some 
critical things to suggest. 



8 

Have you ever spoken with him about this? 

DR. COVINGTON: Yes. Dr. Arjona is one of the staff 
physicians who worked with me. I spoke with him on Thursday 
about any problem he may have had. 

He told me that when he first started with CRC, he 
thought that he was going to be invited to the Warden's office 
to meet the Warden, to welcome him to join CRC . Instead, he was 
criticized by the Warden for his failure to do something, which 
made him very angry. 

That ' s what he told me the problem was . That was 
about three years ago. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think that's the reason for 
expressing opposition today? 

DR. COVINGTON: He told me that he was angry about it 
because he felt that he was the doctor, and he was just the 
warden, and a warden cannot tell a doctor what to do. 

So, I think it's more of a cultural thing than a real 
insult. He was expecting to be welcomed, and he was criticized. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Doctor. 

Are there others present? Yes, either support or 
opposition would be appropriate now. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question for Mr. Calderon. 

Mr. Calderon, San Quentin is a Class IV holding 
facility. We have a problem with Class I and II facilities 
having a drug problem, illegal drug use. 

Do you have any problems at San Quentin with illegal 
use of drugs within the inmates? 



MR. CALDERON: Senator, I have a problem with any 
institution where there's drugs. 

The reality is — 

SENATOR AY ALA: You what? 

MR. CALDERON: I have a problem with any institution 
that has drugs within the prison. 

The reality is that there is some of that that goes 
on, unfortunately, in every institution. We constantly remind 
ourselves of the need to be more security-minded, the need to 
impress upon the staff the importance of searching inmates 
coming in, going out, going to different places, the need to be 
vigilant and to be aware. 

I am very concerned about that problem. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you telling me there's no way to 
control it completely, even though they're in there for 
whatever illegal use they've been involved in, that there's no 
way to control the drug traffic in a state prison? 

MR. CALDERON: Senator, I wish I had the answer to 
that. I wish I could tell you that I had the answer of how to 
completely, 100 percent, stop the introduction of narcotics into 
the institution. I don't have the answer to that. 

There's a lot of things that we can do, and that we 
as a Department have done to try to minimize or reduce the 
amount of contraband coming into the institution, but to sit 
here and tell you that I know the answer to stop it 100 percent, 
I just don't — 

SENATOR AYALA: I can see it in Class I and II, 
perhaps, because they're more lax in their security. At least 



10 

that's what I've seen at CIM in Chino, but a Class IV, that's an 
enclosed facility from all directions. I don't understand why 
there ' d be any abuse in that facility. 

MR. CALDERON: Senator, in reality, San Quentin is a 
Level II institution. We have several missions. It's a Level 
II and — 

SENATOR AYALA: San Quentin is a Level II? 

MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: I thought it was Level IV. 

MR. CALDERON: It used to be a Level IV. Some years 
ago, we went from a Level IV to a Level II. 

But that doesn't matter. In my opinion, with 28 
years of experience, I don't think we ought to have any less 
security when it comes to that in a Level I than in a Level IV. 
As far as I'm concerned, there should be no differences when it 
comes to that . 

SENATOR AYALA: Is there anything you propose to do 
to strengthen that? 

MR. CALDERON: Well, we as a Department over the 
years, of course, we've tried some very innovative and I thought 
they were very worthwhile efforts; however, the courts thought 
otherwise. 

For example, we introduced the use of dogs, you know, 
the sniffing kinds of dogs to sniff out narcotics. I thought we 
were being pretty successful. However, there was a court order 
that was very strict with us in terms of what we could or could 
not do . 

We also, we have a technology transfer committee in 



11 

our Department that is looking at different innovative ways of 
doing that. 

I think there's no substitute for our officers being 
alert, being very vigilant, and doing the kinds of things that 
custodial people ought to be doing. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Additional testimony? Yes, sir. 

MR. RUBIO: My name is Felipe Rubio. I'm a 
correctional lieutenant at the California Rehabilitation Center 
at Norco, and have been so for 23 years come this October. 

And I'm here to tell you, first of all, I just had a 
heart attack a few weeks ago, and I'm here because -- against 
the doctor's orders, because I feel it is so important that 
Mr. Calderon not be confirmed as Warden at San Quentin. 

And I agree with the individuals prior that he should 
be judged on his management style and on his record, which I 
think he has displayed his inability to run an institution 
fairly, to run it financially. 

I think that due to his prejudice, personal 
discrimination, not necessarily racial but personal, not only to 
me but to numerous individuals that he's dealt with. 

Some of these cases are, he brought up individuals 
for termination. And as far as I know, all of the individuals 
that were clearly caught with the goods, such as having sex with 
inmates, bringing in narcotics, were terminated and should have 
been. 

However, Warden Calderon and also James Gomez, the 
Director of Corrections, Joe Sandoval, and even the Governor 



12 

were well aware of situations where the individuals were not not 
guilty, and clearly not guilty, to a reasonable person. And all 
these cases were overturned by the State Personnel Board, and 
these individuals were returned to work. 

Yes, his management style, one individual was 
returned, over $100,000 was paid to him. He got his job back. 
Another individual received over $30,000 and got his job back. 
Another individual got over $45,000 back and got his job back. 

Other decisions of less — involving money were also 
returned to their jobs. And this was done with the Warden 
knowing that these individuals were not guilty. 

In one case -- you say about that he has integrity, 
these people prior. Well, I have seen this man get off work, 
get in a state vehicle, and go to various nightclubs and drink, 
and get back in that vehicle, and go wherever he goes. I have 
personally seen this. 

I know that this individual — first of all, this 
hearing here, it's great. However, it's very difficult for 
individuals to get off work and to come here. There's one 
individual that wanted to be here to tell you people that he 
came home twice to catch Art Calderon at his home, drinking beer 
with his wife, on two, at least two separate occasions, and that 
Art Calderon fired the sergeant. And this is one of the 
sergeants that was -- won his case and was returned back to work 
with full pay and compensation. 

Is this the type of warden that you want? I don't 
think so. 

As for discrimination, this individual has told me 



13 

and other individuals that hell would freeze over before I would 
get an opportunity, and other individuals would get 
opportunities, as acting captain. Not until my last performance 
report did I ever receive one that was less than outstanding. 

And yet, I've been on the Captain's List for 
approximately six years, and never once have I been allowed to 
be acting captain. People that weren't on the Captain's List 
were allowed to be acting captain, and yet I was not. 

As investigator in 1984 and 1985, I was investigator, 
and never did I lose a case, not one. And yet, during Art 
Calderon's time as Warden at CRC was I ever called on for 
special assignment in regards to investigations. Yet clearly, I 
was the best that has ever been at CRC, not because I'm 
bragging, but because of the actual performance that can be 
shown in black and white. 

As for his affirmative action, I had to speak to him 
numerous times in regards to the hiring of Mexican females as 
sergeants and lieutenant. When he left, as I recall, there was 
one Mexican female sergeant, and no Mexican lieutenants. This 
is the type of commitment he has to affirmative action. 

Three weeks ago, my son was killed in an accident 
involving a weapon. And when we buried him three weeks ago, I 
wore captain's bars, although I'm not a captain. And I did that 
because it became a joke, you see, because I have interviewed 
over 20 times for captain. And my son, he used to ask me, he 
says, you know, how come you go to these interviews? And I 
would say, well -- and I would say, well, I've got a chance. 

I knew I really didn't, but you see, the frustration 



14 

that is caused by wardens like Calderon, and he's not alone, but 
my concern right now is somebody like this. When I didn't make 
captain, and now to hell with captain because I would never 
accept it now. 

The last time that I interviewed at CRC, my son asked 
me, and I can see him clearly, "So, what are you doing?" I 
said, "Well, I'm going to the captain's interview." He said, 
"But Dad, why do you go?" And then he was going to explain, and 
he couldn't, and he left. 

Well, I went to that interview. Same results, 
20-something times. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who conducts those interviews? 

MR. RUBIO: The wardens do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So it's the warden and — 

MR. RUBIO: The wardens and their representatives. 

But the thing is, I wore those captain's bars to my 
son's funeral as a final attempt to show people like Calderon, 
and other individuals, that when they screw with somebody's 
life, somebody like myself, like Tafolla, like so many other 
people, they don't just screw with that person like myself. 
They hurt my son. They hurt my family, and they just go about 
going their little parties and drinking. 

Calderon has cussed at me numerous times: F-this, 
and F-you, and do this, and do that. 

Calderon is a liar. He is a man without integrity. 
And there's so many other things that this man has done, and 
yeah, people can sweep it under the table, but I assure you that 
I am not lying. 



15 

Remember what I told you in regards to him going to 
the house of the sergeant and drinking at this person's house 
without him being there, without him being invited. 

And this man couldn't make it to this hearing 
today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Lieutenant, it's obviously a 
matter about which you would have intense feelings, to be 
willing to make an appearance with a superior being interviewed 
by this panel. 

You know, obviously, that we have very little 
investigative capacity but that others do. I think there were 
investigations with respect to allegations of sexual harassment, 
racial discrimination, and maybe mishandling of funds. 

Are you familiar with those investigations having 
been done and their results? 

MR. RUBIO: Yes, sir. 

When this sergeant that was fired on sexual 
harassment, he was immediately terminated from that institution. 

When Calderon was charged with sexual harassment, he 
stayed there and intimidated a lot of people. 

People that conducted the investigation, they came 
down from SSU to not only interview him, or in regards to him, 
but to Castro, were friends of these individuals. 

When is the Department of Corrections going to assign 
people from outside agencies, that aren't associated with these 
guys? Twenty-eight years in the Department, very commendable. 

But how -- when I called, and I wanted to be on the 
panel to give my side of the story, and I forget her name but 



16 

from Blythe, she wouldn't even interview me. 

I gave all my paperwork. I was assured by Senator 
Presley that he would make sure that you people got the 
paperwork. 

This is paperwork that dealt back to 1989, I believe, 
1990, years before I got, as some people suggest, it's a 
personal thing because I got a bad performance report . 

I don't give a damn about the performance report. 
I ' m on my way out now . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many years do you have in? 

MR. RUBIO: This October will be 2 3 years. 

And all I can say is that I gave the paperwork to 
Senator Presley. I received a call from someone that said they 
were doing an investigation for this Committee, and I gave them 
some information. 

And again, my last statements to you people, 
Calderon is a liar, and has not integrity, and it would be a 
travesty if you people confirm him. 

Thanks . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Next. 

MR. TAFOLLA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name 
is Roberto Tafolla. 

I met Mr. Calderon in November of 1989, after making 
an appointment through his secretary when he was Chief Deputy 
Warden at the California Rehabilitation Center. 

The reason I met with Mr. Calderon was very specific: 
to inform him of the discriminatory practices that his 



17 

predecessors — the prior Chief Deputy Warden and the Warden 
that was there before. 

I made that appointment. I also informed him that I 
was in the program administrator list, and I was reachable, and 
I would like to have a chance. And I would like to see, as he 
was coming in as the new administrator, a new management style 
system. 

Basically, management style system in our prisons is 
that if you're friendly with the wardens, if you're friendly 
with administrators, you're in. If you're not, no matter how 
hard you work, no matter how, you know, how credible your 
performance of your assigned duties are, that doesn't mean 
anything to those individuals. 

After listening to Lieutenant Rubio, there's very 
little things to say, other than, number one, in 1989 through 
1993, I believe, the end of '93, when Mr. Calderon was 
transferred to San Quentin as requested, Mr. Calderon 's 
management style in dealing with his subordinates, specifically 
myself, it's a management style of intimidation, of 
disrespectful, and of using verbal language that — that 
degrades a human being. 

When your superior tells you right in your face, 
"Well, if you don't tell me who told you that, well, you know, 
it appears that you're not acting like a man." 

After putting on a community function for the Cinco 
de Mayo, which it was a success in that institution, and trying 
to talk to him to see if he was going to be present there, 
because the community people were going to present him with a 



18 

present, he comes up off the wall, "Well, probably -- it 
probably will be a pile of shit." 

You know, this is the type -- this is the type of 
verbal behavior that a superior uses in the daily operation of 
his facility. 

The whole concern is, if we aren't responsible for 
maintaining the safety of the public, all you need to look at is 
from 1989 to when he left, the record of escapees at that 
institution. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would a warden do or not do 
that would have an impact on the number of escapees? 

MR. TAFOLLA: By making sure that if a — if a 
position is assigned, and the State of California puts the money 
there to guard that tower, to make sure that that tower has that 
staff member there. That's one thing. 

The second thing is to make sure that his subordinate 
staff carry out the custodial duties that we are required to do. 

But again, the most important thing in terms of my 19 
years' experience with the Department of Corrections is that if 
a warden is not sincere and responsive to the needs of the 
staff, the inmates, and of the public, then you're going to have 
problems, you know. 

In terms of all the eloquent recommendations of the 
people that came before us, I don't have any problem with that. 
My only concern is that you can look at the record of the 
California Rehabilitation since Mr. Calderon left it. You can 
look at the record in terms of litigation, in terms of, you 
know, complaints, and legal issues that Mr. Calderon and his 



19 

administration has gone through. 

So, thank you for the time allowed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, sir. 

I guess there's some others that wish to comment. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

MR. TRISTAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
my name is David Tristan. I'm the Deputy Director for 
Institution Division for the Department of Corrections. I'm 
responsible for all the prisons and camps in the State of 
California under the direction of Jim Gomez and Mr. Denninger, 
the Director and Chief Deputy Director. 

I'd like to just take a moment of your time and try 
to address a few of the issues that were raised here by these 
two gentlemen. 

The first issue that I noted that they raised a 
concern on was fiscal management. And I would just like to 
respond that from my perspective over the years that I have been 
the Deputy Director, Warden Calderon and his staff have done an 
excellent job of managing the fiscal resources at that 
institution. 

The Department has faced several years of budget 
cuts. Each year, the Warden and his staff responded to those 
cuts, and they were able to safely operate that institution 
without any significant incidents that I'm aware of. 

There was a recent escape at the institution. There 
was an investigation conducted, and I think that the results of 
that -- and I ' 11 let the Warden respond to those specific issues 
— but I do think that there was found to be some negligence on 



20 

the part of the officer that was in that tower at the time. 

However, other than that, I cannot recall any 
incident of any significance at that institution, in spite of 
the Warden's just constant attempts to manage with the budget 
in the operation of the institution. 

In terms of the State Personnel Board actions that 
were spoken to, I don't know of the specific cases because no 
names were mentioned. It's probably more appropriate that names 
were not mentioned. 

However, in every single adverse action, our process 
is that the Warden and his staff do the investigation. They 
recommend the level of penalty. It's sent up to our 
headquarters , where it ' s reviewed by the Regional 
Administrator, our personnel office, myself. If it's a serious 
issue, such as termination, it goes all the way to the Chief 
Deputy Director and the Director for review. 

Sometimes we are overruled by the State Personnel 
Board; sometimes we're overruled by the court, but I think that 
those are just avenues of redress that every individual has, and 
that they're entitled to. And if someone has a different 
opinion or a finding, then I believe that that's the way that 
the system is set up. 

In terms of the issue that was addressed relative to 
sexual harassment, the state vehicle, and some of those 
inappropriate use of the state vehicle, all of these issues have 
been investigated. And we did not find any finding of fault on 
the part of Warden Calderon. I do not recall the specific 
details because I have not reviewed those investigations in some 



21 

time. 

However, the investigators conducting these 
investigations do not work for my division. They are a 
separate arm within the Department of Corrections that work for 
the Chief Deputy Director and the Director. Whatever findings 
they find, we will take action. 

In my almost six years being in Headquarters, I have 
either taken action, recommended, or personally served notice to 
about — I've almost lost count — but about 17 Associate 
Wardens, Chief Deputy Wardens, or Wardens that I have removed or 
recommended to remove with cause. So, the Department is not 
adverse to taking action against administrators, but we do 
require that there be a certain level of proof before we take 
action against anyone. 

In terms of affirmative action, we constantly review 
affirmative action. And my recollection of the affirmative 
actions at CRC is that they were excellent, both in terms of 
minorities and women at all levels. 

And I believe that in terms of my responsibility in 
terms of the oversight and management of the Department, of the 
Institutions Division within the Department of Corrections, that 
Warden Calderon has done an outstanding job. 

SENATOR PETRIS: May I ask, Mr. Chairman? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: On sexual harassment, you say you 
have to have proof. 

What did those investigations show? Did they 
interview the persons who complained about it and found that 



22 

those persons were lying? What was the problem? 

MR. TRISTAN: In my recollection of the 
investigations, Senator, is that — well, in terms of the 
process, we normally team up staff from affirmative action who 
are trained EEO investigators and someone outside of -- they're 
outside of my division, they work for a separate division. 
Sometimes we pair up also a trained investigator out of our 
Special Services Unit, and they go out and interview the people 
that have complained, witnesses. They also interview the person 
who's been accused of these improprieties. And then based upon 
all of that, then they come up with their findings. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have they ever checked out Folsom 
for similar complaints in your time, in your present capacity? 

MR. TRISTAN: During my tenure as Deputy Director, I 
either asked for permission or sent three separate investigative 
teams out to Folsom Prison over a period of about three years. 

And one of the reasons that I kept sending teams back 
in was because the first time, the investigators came back, and 
this is specific to Folsom, and they advised me that they felt 
that something was wrong but they couldn't get to the bottom of 
it. 

The second team of investigators said the same thing. 

The third team of investigators, I asked them to go 
in there and stay as long as they needed to, to find whatever 
improprieties there might be, regardless of the level. And at 
that point, they stayed there, I think, if I remember correctly, 
for about four to four and a half months. And at the end of 
that time, they came up with some findings, and then we took 



23 

action against the individuals that there were some findings 
against. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What kind of action? 

MR. TRISTAN: I think there was one termination and 
several demotions, severe demotions. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The reason I asked about Folsom is 
that a few years, we had a very, very bad problem there, and we 
had a lot of employees, women, who were being harassed by fellow 
employees. The male guards were oppressing the female guards. 

And I have never forgotten that . And it takes a lot 
of guts for an employee to come here and testify against the 
boss, whether it's the immediate one or the one way up on the 
top, all the way up and down the ladder. 

Now, these complaints had been made at Folsom for a 
long time. Nothing ever happened. 

I had the impression that in a lot of the prison 
institutions, there's still an old boys network, and if you have 
a complaint, you just can't crack through that network. 

Now we're hearing the same thing here. It seems that 
in all the reviews that we make here for the purposes of 
confirmation of a high level appointee, the only place where we 
consistently get complaints of sexual harassment are out of 
Corrections. It doesn't happen in Mental Health; doesn't happen 
in Social Services. There's something in that environment, it 
seems to me, that makes it very bad for women who work there. 

Now I'm hearing the same thing. I don't know whether 
it's true or not. I have to go on what people say here and 
listen to the other side as well. We haven't heard it all yet, 



24 

but I detect the same pattern. 

Now, at San Quentin — at Folsom, you said the third 
time around they finally found something. 

I don't know why it would take them three times 
around. I mean, if all the police investigations are like that, 
they'd never solve any case. They'd be working on the same 
thing for a long time. 

Now we're hearing it about San Quentin. Are you 
going to send more teams back there to San Quentin, or are you 
satisfied from what you've learned that there's no foundation or 
basis for the complaints? 

MR. TRISTAN: Well, Senator, I'd like to try to 
address this from this perspective, and that is that almost four 
years ago, our current Director came before the confirmation 
committee. At that time, one of the big issues, as I recall, 
was sexual harassment in the Department. 

He made a commitment that he was going to do 
everything within his power to try to eradicate that, but he 
also was wise enough to know that some of it may be culturally 
ingrained in terms of the way that the Department had 
traditionally dealt with issues or with people 

But he did set about a course, and did have — we 
have had numerous meetings, discussion, investigations, and I 
can share with you, Senator, that most of the times that I have 
recommended removal of a high level administrator, and it's 
somewhere between 17 and 19 in almost six years of my being in 
Headquarters, it has been as a direct result of investigations, 
and some of them were very, very painful in terms of both to the 



25 

victims and to the people who were being accused. 

It is a very difficult thing, I think, as you've 
mentioned, for someone to come forward and speak. It's a very 
difficult thing to testify in an investigation. 

We just sent in a team to San Quentin as a result of 
long-standing complaints, that it just seemed to come up every 
now and then, every now and then, but we couldn't get a handle 
on exactly what was transpiring there. We pulled together a 
team of four people — one a retired Associate Warden who had no 
vested interest, had never worked at San Quentin — and we said, 
"Go find whatever it is that you find. " 

They've completed that investigation. I have not 
thoroughly reviewed all of their findings. They did find some 
what I would describe as some cultural issues at San Quentin. 
It's my understanding that those findings have been shared with 
Warden Calderon. 

It ' s my understanding that he has set on an 
aggressive course of action to try to correct some of those 
problems there where, maybe, some of the minorities or women 
felt like they were disenfranchised and they were — did not 
have an appropriate say or voice in terms of what was being 
implemented there as policy. And I do think that one of the 
expectations that we set of the Warden was that he go in there 
and try to change some of this culture that was — had been at 
San Quentin. 

Places like San Quentin and Folsom have been around 
for just so many years. There are a tremendous number of 
excellent, excellent people working there. There are also some 



26 

things that have been ingrained there for a long time that does 
take some time to change. 

And I believe that we, as a Department, not just 
Warden Calderon, or Jim Gomez, or myself, but as a Department, 
have to continue to work into the future before we can affect 
just some permanent changes at all our institutions. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you explain the cultural problem 
you referred to? 

MR. TRISTAN: The cultural problem that I was 
referring to is where we had received complaints from 
minorities, or line staff, or women that they said that they 
felt that they were not being listened to, they were not being 
dealt with appropriately. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's a long way from sexual 
discrimination; isn't it? 

MR. TRISTAN: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's specific when you get to 
sexual discrimination. 

Are you saying that some of the complaints about 
sexual discrimination are blurred by differences of culture? 

MR. TRISTAN: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And that maybe the accused didn't 
mean what the — 

MR. TRISTAN: No, I'm sorry. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — victim — 

MR. TRISTAN: I'm sorry. Maybe I'm using the word 
"culture" in the wrong context. 

What I'm saying by culture is that it -- it is in 



27 

some cases, some of the behavior was felt by some people to be 
appropriate, but it was sexual harassment. But in some cases, 
some of the perpetrators felt that it had been long-standing 
practice, long-standing -- just something that was ongoing, so 
some of the folks didn't feel like it was as long as we felt it 
was . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you give examples? What kind of 
things are done on a regular basis that have been deemed 
harmless for years which the administration felt was bad 
conduct? 

MR. TRISTAN: Not paying as much attention to how 
shift and days assignments were made. Taking a critical look to 
see how many women are on days , how many women are on evenings , 
and how many women are on nights. We have 60 percent by union 
contract, 60 percent of the assignments belong to 
administration, 40 percent are strictly by seniority. Within 
that 60 percent, we have a responsibility, in my opinion, to try 
to make sure that there is equal distribution, and there's 
fairness, and there's an equal opportunity for days assignments, 
for weekends off, for special kinds of assignments so that 
everybody has an opportunity. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's on the rotation? 

MR. TRISTAN: On the various rotations, yes, Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you tell us specifically what 
the Director has done since he made the pledge here that he 
would go after this kind of conduct and make some improvements? 

MR. TRISTAN: I think one of the things that the 
Director did was hire more investigators in the affirmative 



28 

action office. I think that he went to great lengths at wardens 
meetings to ensure that the wardens understood that sexual 
harassment, discrimination, was not going to be tolerated. 

He made a video tape that he wanted sent out to the 
entire Department that clearly spoke to the issue of sexual 
harassment and discrimination as an abuse of power, and that he 
would not tolerate it, and would take action where ever he found 
that that was occurring. 

He went to every institution and tried to meet with 
as many people as possible -- officers, clerks, doctors, nurses 
— on first, second and third watches; days, evenings and 
nights, to try to instill in all levels of folks that there was 
going to be some changes in the Department, that he was 
accessible, that they could tell him. 

He didn't want, for example — several times I've 
been at institutions with him and he's said, "No, I don't want 
you walking with me, because there might be a perception that 
you may inhibit some communications." And even though I feel 
like I'm pretty open with people, he still said, "I don't want 
you walking with me, because if I go up and talk to an officer, 
I want that officer to feel free that there's not going to be 
any bystanders listening and maybe misinterpreting what you're 
saying." So I said, "Fine," you know. 

So, I don't typically — even though I may be at the 
same institution, I don't typically walk with the Director 
because he wants to have access to those line staff so that they 
can tell him whatever their — whatever they feel. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have there been less complaints 



29 

since the new policies were instituted? 

MR. TRISTAN: As soon as his policies were 
instituted, there were more complaints because, I think, people 
felt freer to come forward and speak. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That would be normal in the 
beginning. What about -- let's see now. How long has he been 
the Director, three years? 

MR. TRISTAN: I think about three, three and a half 
years, something like that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: All right. Are they still going up, 
or have they declined? 

MR. TRISTAN: I can't speak with any certainty, 
Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I ask you because he isn't 
here. He normally attends these hearings on the confirmation of 
wardens. I guess he had some other commitment. 

MR. TRISTAN: I do believe that there's someone here 
from the affirmative action office. I haven't seen Antonio 
Aguilar, but he could probably give you the statistics. I 
can* t ; I'm sorry. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that Senator Petris and I have, perhaps, a 
feeling of deja vu as we listen to this, because before Senator 
Petris articulated our position or our thoughts, I had that 
thought in my mind, and I thought: this sounds very, very 
familiar. 



30 

I can remember a whole battery of women officers 
being in here, complaining and so forth. And then you were 
explaining how you have the assignments, and one thing or 
another. 

All officers, or those persons who reach officer 
rank, are all considered officers. That's it; isn't it? You 
don't say: that's a male officer, or a female officer. They're 
officers. Isn't that right? 

MR. TRISTAN: That's correct, Senator. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: There's no differentiation; isn't 
that correct? 

MR. TRISTAN: That's correct, Senator. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: In other words, what you expect of a 
male officer, you expect of a female officer; isn't that 
correct? 

MR. TRISTAN: That's correct, Senator. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I'm intrigued with the investigator. 
You must have either an elite group of people who are going off 
in the wrong direction, or something. I can't understand that, 
how you could send three teams for the same problem. 

Now, there's got to be something wrong there. What 
are the ranks of the investigators? 

MR. TRISTAN: I think special agents are at about the 
captain level. 

But I always -- whenever we send in a team, I always 
try to send some high level administrator that is disinterested, 
such as when we sent a team into San Quentin. It was an 
Associate Warden, a retired Associate Warden, a couple of 



31 

investigators from the affirmative action office. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: So, they have the equivalent of 
being a captain in rank, these people, generally speaking? 

MR. TRISTAN: Generally speaking. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: So they should be very experienced 
people; should they not? 

MR. TRISTAN: Yes, Senator. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Are these problems so deep or inbred 
into the system that they're hard to root out? 

MR. TRISTAN: I think, Senator, that sometimes it is 
the victim's unwillingness to come forward in some cases. 
Someone may raise a complaint on behalf of someone, and when the 
investigator goes and tries to interview the victim, the victim 
says, "I don't want to talk about it. I have no complaint." 

In other cases, we have no witness. It is one 
person's word against another person's word. And in those 
cases, we try to look at all of the circumstances: is there any 
prior history on the part of the accused of sexual harassment or 
discrimination; are there other things that may help us, lead to 
a conclusion one way or the other. In many cases it is one 
person's word against another person's word. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I understand that, because many, 
many years ago, I operated in that aura as an investigator for 
the District Attorney, and I cannot ever remember being replaced 
or having somebody else go out and do the work that I did. Not 
that I was perfect, but I just never ran into ran into that 
situation. 

And when you said, "we sent three teams in, " I 



32 

thought: this must be either a very, very deep problem, because 
I had never experienced anything like that. But, you know, 
there are a lot of things that I didn't experience. One of them 
was a good pay. 

MR. TRISTAN: Senator, the reason I mentioned that is 
to illustrate two points. 

One is that when the Director came to the 
Department, he recognized that we did have a serious problem, 
and he tried to address it. So, I agree with you, we did have a 
serious problem. I believe that we still have problems. 

And the other is to demonstrate the Department ' s 
tenacity in trying to get to the bottom of something. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Let me ask you a question, another 
question. 

This has nothing to do with what we're discussing, 
simply you. 

Were you not in here recently for confirmation? 

MR. TRISTAN: No, Senator. My position does not 
require a confirmation. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I'm confusing you with someone else 
who you remind me of, happily so. 

MR. TRISTAN: Did he get confirmed? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: I'll tell you, I know from my own 
experience and my age that, no matter what you do, there are 
going to be people who are not happy with what is done. Always, 
you have some, you know, malcontents. That's just life, I 
suppose. 

But, you know, I've heard so much in this area of our 



33 

operation, in the Corrections end, that Senator Petris has 
referred to, that I'm beginning to get suspect, and I never was 
that way in the past. 

And someone, I don't know whether it was Nick who 
mentioned it, said something about the old boys network. There 
is such a thing. I don't think there's any question about that. 
I've experienced it in many places over a long period of time. 

And I just wonder if we have gotten it so firmly 
ensconced into the Corrections area that officers, as those two 
who testified here before us, and very emotionally, and there 
was no phoniness about the feeling that the man had, the 
question is the correctness of what he was thinking. 

Did anybody ever take time to explain to him what the 
problem was, or why he didn't have the opportunity to become a 
captain? There has to be some reason. But obviously, it was 
never communicated to him, because he holds within him a feeling 
that you absolutely turned him down, turned your back to him, 
paid no attention to him whatsoever. 

And I can understand why he wept in telling that 
story, because that's a sad story, because the man has given 23 
years of his life to the service, and seemingly, we turn our 
backs on him. 

I think that that's a serious thing to contemplate, 
and I wonder what's the answer to that? 

I know that the problem to which he referred, at 
least a portion of it, was not covered in the '89-90 report, 
which I think you mentioned. And they say here: 

"We conducted an investigation and 



34 

found no basis for the allegations." 
Boy, that's a short sentence to cover a long, somewhat traumatic 
experience, I think, for a lot of people. 

I just wonder whether we move too quickly on some of 
these things without spending time to investigate, to see, you 
know, whether the allegations or the contentions have meaning, 
and have substance, before we take an action on saying, "We're 
going to lay the hands on this, and arise, you're the Warden." 

So, it's just a thought that I have, which is a 
complete reversal of an opinion I've held here for many, many 
years . 

I think certainly my colleagues are aware of what the 
situation is, although I don't think some of them were here at 
the time of the hearings that we had to which I have referred 
earlier. 

I just want to get that off my chest, Mr. Chairman, 
and I feel that very strongly. 

MR. TRISTAN: Senator, if I could — I don't know if 
this would be of any help or not, however, I can tell you that 
the Department has worked extremely hard at affirmative action. 

I think, and I haven't counted recently, however, 
what used to be almost exclusively while male wardens at one 
time, we now have about 30 percent of our wardens are black, 
Hispanic, or women. 

And it almost -- we worked very, very hard at trying 
to ensure everyone an equal opportunity. 

In terms of Lieutenant Rubio ' s issue, without 
minimizing his obvious, you know, very, very strong convictions, 



35 

and the number of years that he has served in the Department, 
the captain's position is an extremely competitive position. 
There is typically one or two captains at a maximum per 
institution. You get on the list through a competitive basis, 
and then you go interview at the institution that has the 
opening. So, it is a very competitive process. 

It's something that typically we do not order a 
warden to hire someone. And when they go interview, they 
interview from the list of the first three ranks. And 
typically, a warden and the administrators want to take a look 
at several, not just one, candidate to see who is the best 
person for the job, because the captain is the chief custodial 
officer for that institution and has to -- the warden has to 
have just the utmost confidence in that individual to operate 
the safety and security of that institution. 

So, it is a very competitive process. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Well, see, that's something that I 
learned, and I appreciate your telling me that. 

I had felt that a captain was a person who may have 
been in charge of a watch, or something like that. In other 
words, a senior officer in charge of others, and that's not the 
case at all. 

It tends to be administrative rather than what I 
choose to call physical; is that correct? 

MR. TRISTAN: I would describe the duties as probably 
50-50. However, at our medium sized institutions, we have one 
captain per prison. At our large institutions, we typically 
have one captain that's in charge of all of the various watches 



36 

in terms of the watch commanders, the lieutenants and the 
sergeants, the armory, the range, those areas are their areas of 
responsibility. The program administrators in the — head, 
typically run the day-to-day operations within each facility 
within a prison. Typically there's four or five facilities 
within a prison. So typically, there's only one and, at the 
maximum, two captains per prison. At our large prisons we may 
have two captains . 

SENATOR CRAVEN: A lieutenant, in order to get on the 
Captain's List, does he or she have to pass a test, or is there 
any test for that? 

MR. TRISTAN: Yes, there is a captain's exam. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: So, once you take it, and presuming 
that the person taking it passes, they are passed, and they 
become number 7, 8, or 9, or whatever it is, on the list; is 
that correct? 

MR. TRISTAN: That's correct. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: That's making seniority behind those 
who preceded them; is that correct? 

MR. TRISTAN: That's correct. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Thank you very much. I appreciate 
that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: The investigations of these 
complaints, not necessary the one against the Warden here, are 
conducted by whom again? What kind of teams, and how are they 
composed? Where do you get these people to investigate? 

MR. TRISTAN: Typically affirmative action type 



37 

investigations -- 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm coming to affirmative action in a 
minute here, but go ahead. 

MR. TRISTAN: Affirmative action investigations are 
usually done by an in-trained EEO investigator out of our 
affirmative action office. They're usually teamed up with an 
administrator or an investigator, and sometimes all three from 
another institution. 

In other words, I would have like, let's say, an 
Associate Warden from CIM, an SSU agent, and -- 

SENATOR AYALA: A three-member team? 

MR. TRISTAN: Sometimes three, sometimes four, 
because sometimes there may be upwards of a hundred people that 
they need to interview. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do these people do the investigation 
of complaints? 

MR. TRISTAN: That's correct, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: The perception up there is that 
you're trying to save face from within. 

Why don ' t you get people from the private sector to 
be a part of this team so it doesn't look like you're putting 
Colonel Sanders in charge of the chicken coop? 

If you have people up there who are looking at the 
way it is and not trying to protect anyone from within, instead 
of getting all from the Department of Corrections, I would think 
that you'd have a mix of Correctional officers, whatever rank 
they want to get in there, and civilians from the private sector 
to make sure that there's a balance there and not just from 



38 

within. 

From within investigations sometimes don't give you 
the best results. I want you to take a look at that, see if we 
can get a mix on this team that you have investigating different 
complaints . 

Now, affirmative action's been talked about here all 
night. What is affirmative action to you? What does that mean? 

Affirmative action means a lot of things to a lot of 
people. What does it mean to you? 

MR. TRISTAN: To me, it means an equal opportunity 
for all individuals, regardless of their sex, their race, their 
national origin, their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, 
that they have equal opportunity. 

SENATOR AYALA: They're qualified; .no quota system. 

MR. TRISTAN: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Because, you know, we advance people 
because of quotas. We have to show affirmative action when 
they're sometimes not really qualified, and we bypass people who 
are qualified for the sake of affirmative action, and that's 
affirmative action reversed. 

MR. TRISTAN: That's correct, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: I would suggest to you that certainly 
we should have a mix of minorities and women, and all these 
groups, but it should be on qualifications, period, and not 
because of any quota system that you folks might be involved in. 

So, those two things, I want you to know that I think 
that the make-up of your teams, the make-up should be a little 
more flexible with people from without, and not only people from 



39 

within, making these investigations, to get a clear picture and 
not look like -- people's perception up there is that you're 
covering up for yourselves, and it's not in your best interests 
to do that. 

MR. TRISTAN: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many complaints have you had 
to look into in the several years you've been doing this 
involving a position in which Mr. Calderon was serving as 
Warden? I guess he goes back into other jobs during that time, 
I think. Have you had any? 

MR. TRISTAN: Investigations that involved the 
Warden? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, Mr. Calderon or his close 
associates . 

MR. TRISTAN: Of Mr. Calderon, one. Of other 
wardens, I have to go back, and I would hate to give a number 
that — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm just trying to get you to 
recall any that were matters you looked into involving Warden 
Calderon or those very close to him. There's only one you can 
recall? 

MR. TRISTAN: I can recall one of Warden Calderon 
that involved some allegations of sexual harassment. We did 
not, you know, find him culpable. 

And there was one allegation at one time that came in 
in the form of a letter, an allegation of inappropriate use of 
his state vehicle, and we looked into that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And again — 



40 

MR. TRISTAN: That was years ago. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — no basis for that one? 

MR. TRISTAN: No basis for that one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, sir, did you want to comment? 

MR. HOWELL: Yes. 

My name is Richard Howell. I'm a CC II currently 
serving at at CRC. 

I consider myself a grunt, meaning I'm one of the 
people that's down in the trenches, dealing with the convicts. 
And then I rise up every now and then and have to deal with 
staff . 

I'm here to tell you that Mr. Calderon has backed me 
in terms of dealing with staff. Based on my religious beliefs, 
he has encouraged me to be strong, hold my head up, and get on 
with my job. 

Now, the disgruntled employees that come across in 
this room, downing Mr. Calderon, I'm not surprised at because we 
have those everywhere. Disgruntled people. 

But if they want to speak from their heart, they know 
good and well they need to hire this man. There's no good 
reason why Mr. Calderon should not be confirmed Warden of San 
Quentin State Prison, because I know how San Quentin State 
Prison is. I work there. I did everything from working in the 
grease traps to Death Row, and everything in the middle. 

I started out as a part-time CO, and I waited and got 
promoted to a Correctional Counselor. I promoted out of there 
to Susanville State Prison. I got married at Susanville, and I 
moved to CIC. 



41 

* 
All along, it seems I'm following Mr. Calderon from 

prison to prison, but this man is ace. This man's the only man 

I know of his rank that actually got on the tiers and helped me 

deal with convicts on a physical level. Now, it's not too many 

people going to be doing that at this man's level. 

But I don't think Mr. Calderon would bite his tongue, 
nor will he back up from any convict, and that's the real deal 
that we deal with in prison, is the convicts. 

Yes, staff have problems. Yes, that's going to 
happen. But the real issue is the convicts. What do we do with 
the convicts, because if the convicts decide to tear the prison 
system up, or to tear the prison down, or burn it down, you've 
got to have people who know how to deal with those convicts to 
keep them from tearing that prison down, because we don't want 
to have to spend, $40-50 million to re-build a prison that the 
convicts tore up because they couldn't get along with the 
administration . 

And if you notice any prison Mr. Calderon has been 
in, there has been no such problems like that. This man knows 
how to deal with the convicts. He knows how to deal with staff. 

Just because some staff don't like the way the man 
deals with them based on their negative conduct, or based on 
some improprieties that they've involved themselves in, is no 
reason why not to confirm the man. 

I'm for his confirmation. I'm a grunt. I'm not 
afraid to tell you I'm a grunt, and I'm not afraid to stand up 
in front of this Committee and vote for his confirmation. 

Thank you very much. 



42 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Anyone else? 

Warden, I don't know if you want to comment or 
respond in any way to anything said so far today — 

MR. CALDERON: I sure do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Certainly. Go ahead. 

MR. CALDERON: There's been a lot of things said here 
that attacked me professionally, personally. I'm not even going 
to get into the kinds of things I resent, and I'm offended by 
the kind of comments that were made here. 

There was no real specifics, but I will try to 
respond as best as I can to some of the specific kinds of things 
that were said. 

I heard Mr. Rubio say that he's been with the 
Department, I think he said, 23 years, and interviewed 
20-something times around the state. 

I first became aware of Mr. Rubio, I think, it was 
back in about 1987 or '88. I was a Chief Deputy Warden at 
Susanville. He came up for a captain's interview. I was 
chairing the panel. 

I did not select him because he was not the best 
person for the job. I selected another individual that clearly, 
clearly was the top person for that job. 

He filed a discrimination complaint against me, 
saying that I discriminated against Hispanics . I responded at 
the first level of the appeal or the grievance that -- I 
reminded him that I was a Hispanic myself, and I had been a 
captain for five years at San Quentin, and I was very intimately 



43 

familiar with the role of a captain. 

Secondly, what I had done for the eight or ten that 
had interviewed is, had them do a written test, for lack of a 
better term, to determine the rate -- writing abilities because 
a captain does a lot of that. Again, going back to my 
experience. 

Clearly, clearly this individual was nowhere in the 
same league as the other folks, the recommendation that I made. 

After that, of course, I came to CRC, and once again, 
we were working at the same place together. I did what I could 
to try to get along with this individual, but to my knowledge, 
in 20-some years, he has had a problem with every administration 
that he's ever worked under. And I just want to leave that at 
that . 

Mr. Tafolla, I was forced to take action against him 
for treating women in our personnel office in a very demeaning, 
disrespectful manner. The women came to complain to me. I had 
certain standards that I expected of my employees, especially 
supervisors, and I had told him time and again that went 
contrary to the treatment of people. 

He went and blatantly disregarded my instructions. I 
was forced to take action against him. 

Very conveniently, he forgot to mention that I was 
one of the ones that promoted him to a Correctional Counselor 
III. However, when we went through the budget cuts that we had 
to make, that was one of the positions that I was ordered to 
cut, so I had to cut that position. 

I attempted to work — and God knows, I attempted to 



44 

work with these individuals, but it became such a hostile kind 
of communication that I could no longer sit down and talk to 
these individuals. 

I was the Warden in that facility. I was responsible 
for everything that happened there. And I continue to believe 
that I did the best of my ability to run that place. 

I wanted to touch a little bit on the issue about the 
escapes that were mentioned. Yes, there was an escape last year 
when I was the Warden there. It was about the time I was coming 
— I don't remember the date. I think it was toward the latter 
part of last year, there was an escape. He mentioned that. 

The fact of the matter is, the escape occurred at 
almost at noon, a bright and sunny day. There was a 
correctional officer not 52 yards from the point of where these 
two individuals escaped. 

I think, if you'll recall, he said that we had not 
manned that position. That's just not true. That was there. 

We took adverse action against the individual that 
was in that tower as a result of that. 

As to the other personal attacks that were made 
against me, I'm not going to respond as I don't have any kind of 
specific information. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's some newspaper stories 
that we've seen that relate to former inmate's lawsuit. 

Do you know the circumstances that those relate to? 

MR. CALDERON: Yes, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There ' re at least pretty serious 
allegations in the legal action. I understand that that's still 



45 

a pending matter, but can you help us understand what may have 
occurred in those instances? 

MR. CALDERON: Yes, Senator. 

I just had a meeting with the attorney who's been 
assigned to me, as well with some of the other folks mentioned 
in that newspaper. 

On advice of counsel, I really can't at this point be 
very specific because of the pending litigation. 

I can tell you that I categorically deny the 
allegations made by this inmate that, by the way, was committed 
there for drug abuse and some other kinds of things . 

That's the best that I can do at this point. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's your view that the officer, a 
sergeant, I believe, that was accused of raping the inmate, that 
didn't occur, or you don't think it did? 

MR. CALDERON: I have to believe it didn't occur, 
absent any evidence to the contrary. I have to believe it did 
not occur. 

To answer your question, Senator, no, it did not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, the claim is that the rape 
took place in a room where no one else was in the room except 
the officer and the inmate, and I guess it would be hard to find 
evidence in that circumstance. 

I don't know that proves that it didn't happen, just 
that it fails the lack of proof. 

MR. CALDERON: I understand, Senator, but I would 
choose to believe that a lieutenant with 15 -- a correctional 
lieutenant, a peace officer, with 15 years of loyal, dedicated 



46 

service as opposed to a convicted felon at this point. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

I wanted to ask you about the program that's, I 
guess, of fairly small size, but still worthwhile, it seems, at 
San Quentin, the boot camp is what, I guess, we call it in the 
vernacular. The alternative sentencing program, or something 
like that. 

How is that working out? What is your sense of its 
good and bad? 

MR. CALDERON: Well, as you know, Senator, that's a 
five-year pilot project that the Legislature authorized. 

It's still a bit early to talk about any kind of, you 
know, scientific — any kind of results. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When did it start? 

MR. CALDERON: January of '93. 

From what I've seen there as of January, I'm very 
impressed with the program, especially after working so many 
years, 28 years, with the other, quote, kind of inmate. And to 
see these inmates, and being from a former military background, 
it just -- it's not just a military kind of cadence calling, and 
those kinds of things. 

When you talk to the inmates, one to one, you get a 
completely different story than when you talk to the inmates 
that I'm so used to dealing over the many years. When you talk 
to the families, when I go to the graduation — I try to make 
all the graduations every Friday and I talk to the families. 

Some of these inmates have never accomplished or 
finished anything that they started in life. This is the one 



47 

and only thing they've ever -- and it's a heck of an 
accomplishment for them. 

So, to respond to your question, I think, as a Warden 
at San Quentin, I'm very positive about the program at this 
point. 

There is one other thing that I wanted to make sure 
that the Committee clearly understands, the issues that we're 
talking about -- the sexual harassment, the escape, and what 
have you — we're not talking about San Quentin. We're talking 
bout at CRC, not since I've been at San Quentin, January the 
1st. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have we heard from everyone who 
wished to comment? 

What's the pleasure of of — 

MR. CALDERON: Senator, can I say one other thing? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, yes. 

MR. CALDERON: We also talked about the — or the 
gentleman spoke about my hiring practices. 

I'd just like to say that I would put my record up 
against any other warden in the Department in terms of the kinds 
of appointments that I've made. 

Just to illustrate that point, at San Quentin I was 
instrumental in appointing — of course, the Director has to 
appointment, but I was the one that recommended the appointment 
of the first woman Chief Deputy Warden at San Quentin since 
1852. I have appointed two other women managers in the 
Department, where we only had one at San Quentin. 

While I was at CRC, again, I'm not going to bore you 



48 

with all the details, but I was instrumental in appointing many 
women, and African-Americans, and Hispanics, and others. 

So again, I would put my record up against any other 
institution. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd like to indicate agreement and 
support for your efforts in that respect. 

Pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. 

Any further discussion? Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 
Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Let ' s take ten minutes . 

[Thereupon a brief recess was taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll go back to Mr. Fred Miller, 
Department of Social Services. 

Tell us about what you're doing, and why you like 
this job, and why wouldn't you rather be a warden instead? 

[Laughter. ] 



49 

MR. MILLER: Well, I guess the first test is to 
figure out how to turn the mike on. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think it's on. Just talk right 
into it. 

MR. MILLER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members . 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide about a 
90 -second overview of my background, and then to answer your 
questions . 

I've been a resident of the State of California since 
1960. I've been married 31 years. I have two children, 29 and 
25. I have two grandsons age three, and a 5-year old 
granddaughter who's basically the decision maker for my family. 

Occasional golf, fishing, camping, plus frequent 
family get togethers, to sum up my outside activities. 

Other than four years in the Air Force, and temporary 
work while attending college, my work experience is within state 
service. I've worked for the State of California for 25 years 
in various positions, all within the Health and Welfare Agency. 
I've been the Deputy Director of Adult Services, Disability 
Evaluation, and for several years was the Deputy Director of the 
Community Care Licensing Division. 

I have managed large, multidisciplinary staffs 
located in numerous field offices throughout the state. 
Successful management and leadership of those programs required 
a clear mission that allowed staff statewide to pursue a common 
objective. 

The experience I gained while there has allowed me an 



50 

opportunity to be successful as Chief Deputy Director over the 
last 11 months. My role is: to provide leadership to a group 
of managers, a team; to help define clear objectives and outcome 
measures to accomplish the goals of the Director; to do that 
within the limits of the statute, and to work to modify the laws 
so that our mission can be accomplished, if necessary. 

Our mission is to ensure that needy and at-risk 
children and adults are served, aided, and protected in ways 
that strengthen and preserve families, encourage personal 
responsibility, and foster independence. A mission that can 
only be accomplished through the collective efforts of the 
administration, the counties, the federal government, and the 
California Legislature. 

And I look forward to working with you to accomplish 
our mission. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, let me first ask if there 
are questions "from Members? 

I'll ask also if there's anyone that wishes to 
comment on Mr. Miller's confirmation, that they join us in 
front. 

Yes , ma ' am . 

MS. SMITH: Good afternoon and thank the Committee. 

I was just nervous, because I thought I was going to 
have to run out before I testified. And you don't know what I 
would have had to face when I get back home. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well tell us who you are for the 
record. 

MS. SMITH: I'm Ovie Smith, Ovaria Smith, from Los 



51 

Angeles, California. 

I represent the Society of California Care Home 
Operators and many others. I operate a home, Ovie's Guest Home, 
one home for the aged, and also a community care facility called 
Willing Workers, of which we're very proud of. We house like 
180 a day adult residents. 

I'm very glad to be here to talk about Mr. Miller, 
because let me tell you, if I had to go back home before I 
testified, I would be in trouble. My people sent me here, and 
my plane, I've been waiting to get here just to tell you what we 
think about Mr. Miller. 

I met Mr. Miller sometime ago, about 2 7 years ago. 
And that was before — we were both on the advisory committee 
for licensing. And, of course, I go way back, when AB 344, when 
the bill was first introduced for licensing. 

I want to tell you that we went through a lot of 
terrible times, but upon Mr. Miller coming to licensing, when he 
was in charge of licensing, what he brought to us is a dignity, 
but through the law of enforcement. 

At one time I thought we -- we're providers — I 
thought we were going to kill everybody, and I didn't think 
nobody was listening to what we had to go through when we were 
trying to do a job. 

But I want to tell you today that -- and Mr. Miller 
know when he came aboard as a Deputy Director, I questioned him 
because we had been together before, and we argued. We argued. 
We did. And I said to his Director, Linda, Ms. McMahan, "Are 
you sure he's up to the job," because I felt he was maybe too 



52 

young or something. I didn't know. 

And I'm serious. And I said, "Let me tell you." And 
I want you to know, Mr. Craven, I went to San Diego. We were 
fighting all over the state; I'm serious. 

So, Linda said, "Ovie, I assure you, he's going to be 
all right. " 

And at one time, I want to tell you, you don't know, 
but I promised them I will have all of you investigated, 
everybody -- everybody — because I'm just that serious about 
people, and my whole heart is with it. 

And I want to tell you that upon Mr. Miller coming in 
as Deputy Director, he listened. That's the first thing. 
People need to listen. They don't listen, okay. 

Fred, I said, you've got to listen. He came to Los 
Angeles, and he sat down, and he listened. Of course, I won't 
tell you about the fight we had, and he accused me of doing bad 
things to him, but I didn't. I just forgot, okay? 

But anyway, when Fred came on, I want to tell you -- 
he's Fred to me, because I'm much older than he is -- but he 
executed the law. I want you to know that. But he done it with 
dignity; he did listen. 

And today, license, I'm telling you, is better than 
it has ever been before. And I attribute him with the success. 

And that's all I come to say. Let me say this. Many 
people wanted to come, but we didn't know it until later. You 
may get a lot of letters from different constituencies all over 
the state, because I represent not only the Society of 
California Care Home Operators, but people all across the state 



53 

because they know I'm going to be truthful with them, and I'm 
going to tell them the truth when they call me. 

So, you'll probably get letters. It may not be 
saying right, I don't know, but they will be letting you know 
what they feel about Mr. Miller. 

Thank you so much, and I've got to catch a plane. I 
just wanted to let them know I was here, so I won't get in 
trouble. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else related to 
Mr. Miller who would like to comment? 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. MILLER: She's actually my surrogate mom. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, sir. Are you Mr. Webb? 

MR. WEBB: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, I'd like very much to hear 
your comments. 

MR. WEBB: Okay. 

My name is George Webb. I was born and raised in the 
small town of Oroville, graduated from high school there, spent 
three years in the Military Police in Germany as an 
investigative reporter for the CID, later graduated from San 
Jose State, worked in construction, taught English for Oroville 
Adult Ed., and now I help my wife in her business, Countrie 
Folke Home Care, of which she is the administrator and licensee. 

Let me tell you a little bit about Oroville. This 
background information is essential to understanding what it is 
I'm trying to say. Let me tell you, I am talking about my own 



54 

race of people, the people I was -- this is the town I was born 
and raised in, where I still live. 

To begin with, In Oroville as a business person, you 
don't go shopping on the 1st or the 15th. That's when the 
people on welfare get their checks. If you live in Oroville, 
you can spot welfare people with one glance. 

In the grocery store, you can see them pushing their 
carts full of frozen, prepared foods, snack food, chips, soda 
pop, ice cream, and choice cuts of expensive meat. You won't 
see staples like beans, flour or rice that take time to prepare. 

The typical person pushing the cart will have on 
either mismatched clothes, wrinkled or soiled clothes, or 
clothes that don't fit, or all three, and thongs. The person 
invariably will need a haircut. The person will have two or 
three kids in tow. Some of the kids will be running back and 
forth up the aisles, grabbing food, and then discarding it 
somewhere else when something new catches their fancy. 

The kids are invariably talking loud, are unruly, and 
show very little signs of any self-discipline. Every so often 
the mother will yell some cuss word at them as a token effort of 
parental control. 

No, it's not good policy to go shopping on the first. 

Also, when food stamps were picked up at the post 
office, that as also a place to avoid, with the lines extending 
down the lobby, through the foyer, down the steps, and out to 
the sidewalk. 

You can also spot the welfare coming down the street 
in their cars. 



55 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Chairman. 

Excuse me. I wonder if we can get down to why we 
should confirm Mr. Miller or not confirm him. I think that's 
what we're here for, sir, with all due respect. I think we 
should get down to the point, why this man is eligible or not 
eligible to be confirmed. 

MR. WEBB: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I just want to state for the 
record that I very much disagree with the comments you've made 
so far that stigmatize. 

But I'd like to hear your comments about Mr. Miller 
and why, if there's some factual circumstance, or an action that 
you disagreed with, or something of that sort. 

MR. WEBB: I realize that many people will think that 
I'm drawing a stereotype of welfare recipients, but what I'm 
describing is the reality as it exists in Oroville. 

If you want, I will get to the care home business of 
my wife. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, please. 

MR. WEBB: My wife is a medical technologist from the 
Philippines. I have discovered that people of Pacific Islander 
ancestry dominate the care home industry. As a race of people, 
caring for others appears to be their chosen field. 

There is not one Filipino in Butte County that's 
getting welfare. They either have care homes, or they work for 
other Filipinos that have care homes. 

So what does the State of California do to show its 
undying gratitude for this race of people that is dedicating 



56 

their lives to taking care of the elderly, the mentally 
impaired, and the castoffs of society that no one wants? 

Why, the State of California is doing everything it 
can to put them out of business, of course, with ambiguous, 
subjective administrative law and over-zealous bureaucrats with 
unchecked power. 

For many Filipinos, English is a second language. 
Most Filipinos do not want to fight the State of California. 
They just want to be allowed to work and enjoy the profit that 
accrues from their labor. They come to America to enjoy the 
benefits of a market-driven economy. 

Being in business as a care home operator is no 
longer determined by the marketplace. The centralized planning 
from the top down that stifled the economy of Russia and led to 
the economic collapse of that country is now firmly entrenched 
in California. 

Being a good care provider in California is 
absolutely no guarantee of being allowed to stay in business. 
The State of California, represented by Community Care 
Licensing, determines who will and who will not have a license, 
and this determination is based on the personalities of the 
people involved and not on the quality of care. 

My wife's facility in Oroville, Countrie Folke Home 
Care, comes highly recommended by doctors on the Board of 
Directors at Oroville Hospital, by Butte Home Health, by 
California health professionals, by the discharge planners at 
Oroville Hospital, by the Public Guardian's Office, by the 
ombudsman's office. The County Coroner has her father at the 



57 

facility. A judge has a brother at the facility. A nurse has 
her mother-in-law at the facility. A state investigator has her 
father at the facility. A bank president has his mother at the 
facility. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Webb, what's the beef? 

MR. WEBB: Okay, these people have visited -- okay. 

One person from Community Care Licensing, one person 
who is not a health professional, one person who has never cared 
for an elderly person in his life, one person who has never 
operated a business in his life, made the unilateral decision to 
initiate revocation proceedings against my wife's license, and 
denied her and myself a license at another facility that we 
purchased. 

This one bureaucrat is stating that only his opinion 
counts, that only he will decide who will be allowed to operate 
a care home, and who will not. His ego must be served before 
the needs of the clients. 

If a care home provides bad care in a small town like 
Oroville, where everyone knows everyone, then that person will 
be out of business because very few people will decide to buy 
those services. That is the marketplace at work. 

The way it works now, the state determines how much 
we receive for our services if we care for SSI clients. The 
state has the final say on who can expand his business. The 
state has the final say if one can buy another care facility, 
and the state even determines if one can stay in business, and 
none of the decisions are based on market forces or quality of 
the goods and services produced. This is central planning. 



58 

To balance the books, I will state that Deputy 
Director of Community Care Licensing, Martha Lopez, has 
initiated an investigation of this in Chico. But how was such a 
thing allowed to happen? How many times has it happened to 
other people who didn ' t know how to scream bloody murder to 
their elected Assemblyman? 

I will say that I feel very fortunate in having 
Bernie Richter as my Assemblyman. Without him, my wife and I 
would have faced a very tough and expensive battle. We still 
may. 

An SSI client pays $2 3 per day. One hour for an 
attorney will cost a care provider five days ' revenue of one 
client. How can care providers who care for SSI clients 
possibly afford to fight the State of California? 

The state bureaucrats at Community Care Licensing 
know this. They have no financial liability for their actions. 
They can act with impunity. 

Why is one state bureaucrat allowed to have so much 
unchallenged unilateral power over a business? Why is there no 
committee of health care professional that has the power to 
approve or deny these revocation/denial proceedings? 

The Governor of the State of Washington, just last 
week, appointed a 2 2 -member task force to streamline 
administrative law to make the law easier for citizens to 
understand. Can the State of California afford to do any less? 

A couple of weeks ago, I read in the Sacramento Bee 
that moving companies were hard-pressed because the number of 
people moving out of California far exceeded the number people 



59 

moving to California. And they, the truck drivers, were forced 
to make the return trip empty. 

Now, it goes to figure that people that can afford a 
moving van to move their stuff for them must be people with 
money. People on welfare don't hire moving vans. 

If the population of California is growing, and if 
people with money aren't moving here, then it doesn't take a 
genius to figure out just who is moving here and why. 

So, why is the State of California, represented by 
Community Care Licensing, doing all that it can possibly do to 
stifle and suppress the care home industry? 

My wife and I applied for a license back in January 
for a new facility. We're still fighting the Chico District 
Office for a license. 

After a denial, the applicant must wait seven months 
to a year for a hearing on the charges . That represents seven 
months to a year of paying mortgage on a building with no 
income . 

My wife and I have lost lots of money, as have many 
other care providers . One state bureaucrat can cause a care 
home operator to go bankrupt. 

Now, don't ever think that the American businessman 
is dumb. The next house that I convert into a residential care 
facility for the elderly will have the plumbing and electrical 
connections necessary to convert the rooms to SROs, Single Room 
Occupancy, for independent living. This is where new investment 
money is going, precisely because the State of California is so 
difficult to deal with. 



60 

Is the state going to pass a law making it illegal to 
rent a room to someone over 65? Will that elderly person be 
better served? No, absolutely not. 

An elderly person will pay approximately the same 
money and receive no care. In fact, it would be illegal for me 
to provide any care . 

And if you think things are bad now, just wait for 
the current crop of welfare recipients to hit the age where they 
need residential care. These are the SSI clients of the future: 
people who have never been responsible for anything in their 
entire lives. These people will know how to work the system. 
They have all the necessary phone numbers memorized to put a 
care provider right out of business. 

Have you ever heard of a business where the clients 
have unlimited access to use your phone? Where you have to 
transport your clients all over town for free? 

The laws are ambiguous enough for Community Care 
Licensing to enforce it as such. The laws are intentionally 
ambiguous to allow such free interpretation by Community Care 
Licensing, and I have just touched the tip of the iceberg. 

If the people on welfare were harassed anywhere near 
the way that I've seen Filipino care home operators harassed, 
believe me, they'd go get a job. 

I would like to see Fred Miller assert his influence 
as Director of Social Services to make Butte County the 
retirement center of the state, not the welfare capital of the 
state. 

Thank you. 



61 

Any questions? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I don't think so, sir. Thank 
you. 

Mr. Miller, how many staff positions, that is, the 
administrative hierarchy, would you estimate are between your 
Department and the Oroville inspector? Do you have any sense of 
how many that might be? 

MR. MILLER: Two. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, there ' d be two people between 
you and that person? 

MR. MILLER: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are you then familiar with the 
circumstances of this case? 

MR. MILLER: I'm not familiar with the circumstances 
of the case. I am familiar with the issue that's been raised in 
Chico. I am familiar — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oroville. 

MR. MILLER: Chico and Oroville area. It's serviced 
by the Chico — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's all that office? 

MR. MILLER: Yes. 

And we have, in fact, the Deputy Director of 
Community Care Licensing, Martha Lopez, is meeting locally in 
the area to review the cases that are in question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the controversy about? 

MR. MILLER: Basically, some of the issues are around 
facilities, that their licenses have been revoked because of 
lack of care and supervision or other reasons. Other issues are 



62 

related to facilities that have been cited for serious 
deficiencies . 

My concern is that the Department has looked at these 
situations, made sure that the environment — that there is an 
environment where folks can live in a safe and healthy 
environment, but also to make sure that we have provided the 
opportunity for the providers to receive training, to receive 
technical assistance, and other assistance in order to operate 
their facilities in compliance. 

We do have an active community effort going on there 
now to try to address that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sir. 

MR. KELCH: Yes, Chairman Lockyer. 

Derrell Kelch with the California Association of 
Homes for the Aging. 

Originally, I was just going to say that we support 
Fred Miller in his appointment. Over the years, we've disagreed 
many times. I think you heard that from Ovie . She's a tough 
act to follow. 

But the one thing that we've always found, which she 
stated, was that Mr. Miller has always been professional, and 
has always been open, has always willing to address the tough 
issues . 

I tend to want to respond some to the earlier 
testimony. Some of the toughness of the regulations and 
statutes which he cited have been carried by our Association. 
Senator Mello has carried far-reaching legislation in bringing 
an element of standards and quality to the area of residential 



63 

care facilities for the elderly. 

We have not heard these kinds of comments generally 
from providers out there, that they are unilaterally enforced or 
inappropriately enforced. 

In fact, our feeling is that we still have much to do 
to make sure that we maintain the quality in our residential 
facilities . 

And so, we find the statements that the gentleman 
made quite difficult to understand, and we definitely disagree. 

We would urge your support of Mr. Miller's 
confirmation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're a statewide officer? Are you 
President of the group? 

MR. KELCH: I'm sorry, I'm Vice President of Public 
Policy. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Where are you located? 

MR. KELCH: Here in Sacramento. 

SENATOR PETRIS: In the past two or three years, have 
you had complaints from operators in the Bay Area? 

MR. KELCH: In terms of the residential care 
facilities? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. KELCH: No, we have not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: None at all? 

MR. KELCH: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I've had a lot of complaints in 
Oakland about the high-handedness, oppression, arrogance, et 
cetera, of the Department with respect to certain operators, 



64 

both in Oakland and San Francisco, accusing them of very 
arbitrary actions and so forth. 

That came up in a flurry a few years previously. Mr. 
Healy came down and had a mass meeting — I attended it — with 
a lot of the operators, and he took a lot of steps to correct 
that. 

But now, accordingly to the complaints — I haven't 
investigated the complaints, but I have heard them -- there 
seems to be another round of the same type of thing. 

None of that has come to your attention as an officer 
in the Association? 

MR. KELCH: No, and keep in mind, we only represent 
residential care facilities for the elderly, so — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I understand that. That's only 
a segment overall. 

MR. KELCH: Correct. 

I don't know if it was another type of client groups 
or not . 

SENATOR PETRIS: No, this is the elderly that I'm 
talking about. 

MR. KELCH: For the elderly, no, I have not, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else that would 
wish to — yes, please come forward. 

MS. FUCANAN: I'm Elsa Fucanan. I ' m an operator in 
the Bay Area for the 17 years. I started my business in 1978, 
and I'm still operating some facilities. 

I was not here prepared. I was just invited by the 



65 

group here in Oroville, but I'm not here against Mr. Miller's 
confirmation. I am here in favor of it. 

It's just that I would like to emphasize some concern 
that's been going on in the Bay Area lately. Since being an 
operator from 1978, I could see the difference. Like when — I 
think it was three years ago when they said the state budget, 
there was a concern about the state budget, and they start 
cutting off staff. 

And Emoryville's district was entirely turned around. 
Everybody else was new there. And we had new evaluators coming 
in, they're just giving us a hard time because they're not 
social workers, they're just street person or no experience in 
the business, no concern at all for the elderly. 

And like, for example, they would come to my 
facility, and like if I'm licensed for six nonambulatory, I 
would always see to it that I'm below; I have five nonambulatory 
clients . 

If she comes, because she doesn't like me, she will 
say, "You had 17 nonambulatories . You have to relocate all all 
these 13 others," just without any -- I would appeal, or I would 
ask for independent contractor to look at this . 

Usually the case, you send an independent contractor 
to assess ambulatory and nonambulatory residents if you have a 
dispute. 

She would say, "It's denied because the state cannot 
afford an independent contractor." 

But since with previous operations, every time I 
asked for an independent contractor, I'm always right in my 



66 

judgment. Like if I — if they come and say, "You have 13," and 
I say, "I have 5," I have five. 

And on one different occasion, they said I have nine 
nonambs . I have always five. I always go beyond what I have -- 
below, to be sure that I won't be in trouble. 

And one time in my other facility, which is San 
Ramon, they said, "Oh, you have -- according to hearsay, you 
have 17 nonambs." So, I asked for an independent contractor, 
which they did, but that evaluator has to go and meet her for 
breakfast in some bagel shop. They're not supposed to do that. 
An independent contractor will just come, and they don't see the 
others. All she does is just assess of who can get out of the 
exit doors in case of emergencies. And they didn't do that. 
They just do what the evaluators tell them, and I think that's 
not fair. 

And being in the industry for awhile, I really have 
concerns about the elderly. You know, I practically work there 
24 hours everyday. 

And if I'm such a bad operator since 1978, I should 
have been closed by now. 

But this evaluator that doesn't have any experience 
at all, and she doesn't like me because I drive a Mercedes, or 
something, and she just thinks that I'm a bad operator. 

But I'm -- my facilities are my pride, and I would 
like to invite Mr. Miller, or Martha Lopez to come and visit my 
facilities to show that I'm very proud. 

And also for the past year, we've been harassed so 
much by this evaluator, so I ask help from the President 



67 

Roundtable with Republicans and Presidential Roundtable, which 
I'm a member, because I respect the government. And also with 
the Senate Republicans' Senatorial inner circle, and they said 
you have to go -- that is on the state level. And since I heard 
yesterday that I would be talking in front of Senators here, I 
think this is — I grabbed the opportunity, because I wasn't 
really ready, but I'm confirming Mr. Miller. 

I would like to -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a chance that two of the 
ones up here would be -- 

MS. FUCANAN: But I would like him to investigate 
what's going on in the Bay Area, especially in my facilities. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, ma'am, for your 
comments . 

Mr. Miller, I would just concur, and I think you've 
had sort of a taste of it. You obviously do this all day, every 
day, for years, and I've had occasion in the past to bring — it 
was more in the child care licensing phase of your career than 
the more recent one, but I've had occasion to bring disputes to 
your office. 

I will say that I think you tried to handle them in a 
fair and expeditious way, but there's a lot of complaints. It 
just makes you worry a little about the misuse of authority that 
can occur in lower level bureaucracies. Well, I guess maybe 
higher level, too, if you look at Watergate. 

Anyhow, it's bothersome because you hear the 
quantities . 

You should, of course, expect people to be defensive, 



68 

and want to decide that someone on the other side of the table 
was wrong, but still, there seems to be a lot of it. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I just wanted to ask if you'd had 
complaints in the last couple of years from operators about the 
Department? 

MR. MILLER: I have been outside of Licensing for the 
last couple of years, but other than the Oroville issue, which I 
am familiar with, I had not heard the issues around the Bay 
Area. 

I do know that a couple years ago, there were issues 
in the Bay Area . I do know that we implemented several things , 
everything from the Licensing Academy to try to train the staff. 

There's over 800 licensing program staff throughout 
the state. It's critical. I know how critical it is to try to 
get a consistent message to that large body of staff that are 
going out, knocking on doors everyday. 

Every once in a while we do get a situation where a 
licensing evaluator will go beyond their authority. 

The critical — the critical part in that process is 
to try to keep the message out to the providers when that 
happens is to not take it for a long period of time if they have 
an issue, but to try to push it through the chain of command. 
There is a regional manager out there. The reason those 
positions were established a few years back is so that they 
would be in the local community, so they could get out and try 
to deal with those types of issues early on. 

I've tried many things to have none of those 



69 

situations occur. I don't know that we will ever get there, but 
I think there is a system in place that, if we could get the 
complaints into the proper process, at least they would be dealt 
will. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Part of it in my area seems to be 
pretty bad attitude. Some of the inspectors, or whatever 
they're called, evaluators, came in with a very hostile attitude 
from day one. It looked like they'd already written the report 
before they ever went into the facility. 

It didn't seem to have a spirit of, "Well, sure, 
we're the inspectors, but the reason we're doing this is to keep 
the standards high and help your residents. So, in the process 
of doing our job, we're really helping you to do your job 
properly. " 

That used to be the case. But during the time of the 
complaints that I mentioned, it just didn't seem to happen that 
way. 

So, I would urge you to check that out as well. 

It was 1992 that I was informed about the problems. 
As I say, we did have an excellent public meeting with Mr. Healy 
participating personally. 

In 1992, where were you assigned? What was your 
position at the time? Were you in this chain of command, or did 
you come in after? 

MR. MILLER: I came in after Mr. Healy. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I realize that. Who was the 
Secretary? Was it Mr. Gould? 

MR. MILLER: Yes. 



70 

SENATOR PETRIS: It was during his confirmation 
hearing that some of these things came out, and I had the 
impression that maybe you were transferred as a result of those 
complaints in order to tackle them, see what you could do. 

MR. MILLER: Actually, I was actively involved in 
trying to deal with those complaints at that time and those 
issues. I believe at that particular time there was a 
tremendous amount of issues relating to group homes, and that 
was the area we were working in. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That was part of it, that's true. 

So, your transfer wasn't a direct result of 
information brought out at the Rules hearings? 

MR. MILLER: No, sir, it was not. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Willie, did you want to comment? 

MR. HAUSEY: I'm Willie Hausey. 

Just a few minutes ago, you had Ovie Smith up here, 
whom I work for. 

I think in the time that Russ Gould was going through 
his confirmation, we had made a lot of the changes within the 
law. 

Providers, it's a tough thing for them to go in for 
new changes. You made changes, 13 in one year. No money. 

They saw the license folk coming out to their homes, 
telling them what to do, and they were objecting to it. So, at 
least they had one thing that they could turn to, and that was a 
Member of the Legislature that represented them, saying, "It's 
these folks are coming down on me." 



71 

They was not. I represent those folks. They were 
really, really up against making a change that was going to cost 
them dollars. 

So, I can sit here and tell you, Mr. Miller has been 
fair. He carried out his job fully. If anybody needs to be 
confirmed in the job, it's him. 

And there is no fault within what those people were 
trying to do. They were trying to do something that you had put 
in place, but didn't put the necessary tools to carry it out, 
and that's money. You keep passing laws asking people to do 
thing without putting dollars with it. 

And in San Francisco, we have had a hell of a time 
trying to meet regulations because the homes are old. They 
don't meet any fire standards, so they've made how many waivers 
in San Francisco. 

But I think that overall, we've done a good job, and 
the Department have worked closely with us. And that's why 
we're here. If it had been the other way, I would have been to 
each and every one of your saying, "Please don't confirm this 
man because he ' s bad for us . " 

But he is good fox us, and I think you should confirm 
him. 

My closing remarks. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Miller, let's talk about a 
couple of different areas. I'm not sure exactly what falls in 
your immediate purview or not . 

The automation computer projects, I guess the 
Department is currently involved in four of those that run up a 



72 

pretty substantial financial commitment, a billion dollars or 
so, from various sources. 

We read stories, and we have auditor reports and 
others, that are very critical of the state's effort to 
implement these new computer systems . 

Are these programs going to be directly under your 
auspices in the Department? 

MR. MILLER: They are. There is a Deputy Director in 
charge of those particular programs, but all the programs — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As Chief, they would be — 

MR. MILLER: Yes, they would be. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — reporting to you about them? 

MR. MILLER: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Am I right in saying that there 
are about four? 

MR. MILLER: There four major projects. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Some little ones, too? 

MR. MILLER: Yes, there are. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think it's the Child Welfare 
one, if my memory serves me correct, that seems to be the 
furthest behind, but there ' re lots of delays and cost overruns 
associated with all of these. 

What's going on? 

MR. MILLER: Probably the one that was most discussed 
in the Legislature was SAWS. It was the Statewide Automated 
Welfare System. 

As we end the day, we actually have -- in San Joaquin 
County we have the first county that came up on SAWS, and on 



73 

interim system SAWS, so we have our first success today. I was 
called, and it did work. So, they have a living, breathing 
county that's up on the Statewide Automated Welfare System, the 
interim system. 

There'll be 14 counties that come up on that 
particular system that will provide data that will allow us to 
make final decisions on the statewide SAWS implementation. 

They are — they're extremely complex projects. The 
SAWS project, for example, over a 12-year period, excluding Los 
Angeles County, is over $700 million for one time and ongoing 
operating costs . 

It's a project that requires getting federal 
approval on each step as you go, and getting legislative 
approval on any deviation. 

It requires working with the counties, because the 
end user on these systems are the county workers that are 
sitting there at a desk, actually using the equipment. So, it 
is absolutely essential that you have the buy-in from the 
counties that the system is going to provide the product that 
they need. 

So, they are complex systems. I think that the only 
thing that I can tell you is that we, when I first came into 
this job a few months back, recognized the complexity of these 
systems, and quickly moved to request the Health and Welfare 
Agency to actually put up an oversight task force that would 
include: myself; the Deputy Director; the Deputy Directors of 
Information Technology and admin, within the Department; the 
Department of Finance, both the OIT side, the Office of 



74 



Information Technology side, and the budget side; and the 
Department of General Services. Those are all the key — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When was that set up? 

MR. MILLER: That was set up about seven months ago, 
and we have continuously, using SAWS as an example, looked at 
SAWS, tried to identify two years down the road, when we try to 
implement SAWS statewide, what are the roadblocks that we can 
project we're going to have to deal with. 

And I think just in any major project, that's going 
to be to make sure that you have a competitive bid process, 
something that puts different vendors on an equal playing field 
in order to compete for the statewide system, a process by which 
we could make sure that the product that we were going to bid 
statewide would, in fact, do the job that it was supposed to do. 
that is interim SAWS; that is the 14 counties we're bringing up, 
pulling data from that so that we can answer questions with hard 
data, as opposed to speculation. 

And so, we work these projects through the system. I 
would say that SAWS right now, from an administrative oversight 
view, is in good shape simply because we have tried to figure 
out those particular things. And I feel confident that we have 
a process in place that will allow us to get the end job, not 
quickly, and it's going to require continuous, not just once a 
year but continuous, monitoring to make sure that we are, in 
fact, keeping on schedule with that particular project. 

The SACS project, which is, you know, is a major 
project for Child Support Enforcement, is also a project that 
seems to be staying pretty much on schedule, and we've just 



75 



started the heavy discussion around working that project down 
through its lifetime. So, that project is in pretty good shape. 

The Child Welfare Services Case Management system, we 
have been involved with, and we are at this point in a conflict, 
I guess is the only way I can state it, or in disagreement, 
anyway, with the vendor on the value, or the difference between 
the SPR, the planned that was approved by the Department of 
Finance during the budget cycle, the difference between that 
approval, which is a product that is jointly developed between 
the vendor and the state, and what the vendor now believes 
shortly after the SPR, the vendor now believes the value of that 
product is . That ' s requiring some intense negotiations . 

The bottom line objective is to get a Child Welfare 
Services Case Management system on the desk of workers statewide 
in the county, and to do that within budget. And if we can't 
work through that process, then it's going to be an issue that 
we will have before various legislative bodies, discussing, and 
trying to deal with it. 

But it is absolutely probably the most complex area 
that — to manage and keep in touch with. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the information? What 
would happen? What would the caseworker be working with now, a 
bunch of pieces of paper in a file? 

MR. MILLER: Yeah. It varies significantly from 
county to county, and it runs from that to some information 
technology systems that are in place in the counties. 

But California, unfortunately, does not have a 
statewide Child Welfare system that will actually track foster 



76 

kids, and the history around those particular foster kids, and 
provide not only the administration but the legislative body's 
information that gives you an ability to adequately tell what's 
happening to the foster children. 

The CWS system is the product that we were looking to 
to fix that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But SAWS and the others seem to be 
pretty much on schedule and on budget? 

MR. MILLER: I'm not sure that you can ever figure 
out what "on budget" means. So, I've been diligently trying to 
do that for 11 months, but based on the SPRs, and, you know, 
that's the document that we bring before the Legislature through 
the budget process, is that SAWS is in fact now on target, and 
it's within the SPR. 

The latest effort was to get approval for some 
demonstration projects so that we could run the Napas, which is 
the software, to allow us to run the software that is running on 
ISAWS, on the interim SAWS system, where the county came up 
today. But to allbw that software package to run on different 
platforms, and that would be piloted, and we received approval 
through the legislative process to fund that. That would allow 
for a much more competitive, in fact an absolutely competitive, 
playing field for more than one vendor to compete for a piece of 
the SAWS project, and yet run a single — a single maintenance 
software package for the State of California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It seems like there may be some 
other witnesses, so let me call of this lady to help us. 

MS. LUNA: My name is Erlinda Luna. I'm an 



77 



administrator of the biggest facility in Oroville with 49 beds. 
There's also one complainant of that subject complained. 

I'm not a care provider, but I'm supporting 
Mr. Miller's confirmation, because being an administrator of 
that facility, I see -- I saw, you know, the first meeting we 
had with Assemblyman Richter, Mr. Miller was there, Martha Lopez 
was there. And he keeps tabs on that. In fact, there was a 
follow-up letter by Martha Lopez, Deputy Director of Community 
Care Licensing. 

And I think Mr. Miller will be doing and focus his 
attention on this Chico district — this Oroville is under the 
Chico district, which is, Oroville is a part of that district. 

And I just want to make comments, please, if 
Mr. Miller will be confirmed as this position, please, make sure 
that the Chico district will be taken care of, because I have 
been intimidated by the — we call it LPA, the Licensing Program 
Analyst, they call the evaluators . I didn't have any voice to 
even explain to them the side of the facility, just make all the 
allegations: substance shaded, substance shaded. Without 
being, you know, without doing his job on doing investigation. 

So now that I was encouraged to join at this meeting 
and Mr. Miller was there. Martha Lopez was there. I think that 
some good results will be — will happen in the future. 

So, I'm supporting Mr. Miller being administrator of 
that facility, the largest facility in Oroville, the third 
largest in Butte County. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 



78 

Mr. Miller, what's the toughest decision you had to 
make in the last year? 

MR. MILLER: In the last year? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MR. MILLER: The toughest decision was probably to 
postpone taking my grandkids to Disneyland. I had to do that 
because of actually a hearing on information technology. That's 
the one that had the most repercussions, anyway. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about the work? 

MR. MILLER: The work, I think the toughest decision 
was a series of decisions around the SAWS project, and how we 
could move the project to what I perceived, anyway, as being a 
no-win situation, because SAWS was headed to a single system, or 
to a single vendor bidder situation once we got through with the 
I SAWS project. 

I do not believe that you can have, in the State of 
California, an $800 million project that ends up with a single 
winner. I think we have enough history on this particular 
project over the last 15 years, through several efforts, to know 
that if we get to that point, there will be enough protests that 
the losing bidders will never allow the system to be 
implemented. 

So, the series of decisions associated with building 
a strategy and designing an alternative demonstration approach, 
allowing the software to operate on multiple platforms, was the 
toughest or most draining set of decision processes we've been 
through. And that required pulling in resources, people who 
knew a lot more about this than I did, and learning from them 



79 

the details around the technical parts of the information 
technology. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And just before that, it was Adult 
Services, was that the prior position? 

MR. MILLER: Yes, Adult Services. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does anything stand out in your 
mind from that period that was tough, a hard decision to make, 
controversy? 

MR. MILLER: Well, I think probably in the IHSS 
program, the time I was there, we had taken a 100 percent 
generally funded program, the In-Home Supportive Services 
program, and we had modified that to a Title 19 funded program. 

So, in meeting the federal definition of eligibility 
for a client group, then we had to then make that transition of 
taking a percentage, or a portion of the IHSS population, and 
qualifying them for Title 19 funding. 

That was and still is an ongoing process. We're at 
about, for the Department, around 60 percent, and we had 
projected that about 68 percent of that population would be 
Title 19 eligible for federal funding. 

And so, that process, though, created a threat. It 
created a concern, anyway, to the In-Home Supportive Services 
industry, in that they did not want In-Home Supportive Services 
to be perceived as a medical model. So, funding that through 
Title 19, and putting it into the — which involved the 
Department of Health Services, left in the community's mind that 
we were moving that towards a medical model, which we were not. 
So, it required a lot of effort to reassure that community, or 



80 

to work with the community, to try to explain that the IHSDS 
program and the PCSP, Personal Care Services Program under Title 
19, was the same program. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Disability Evaluation phase, 
was that the one before that? 

MR. MILLER: Yes. Actually, I was in that as Interim 
Deputy Director. I basically came in and did, after Community 
Care Licensing, did a management review of that particular 
program . 

I think the thing that sticks in my mind the most 
there is the fact that we had a 50,000 case backlog. They 
referred to it as shelved cases. And that meant that 50,000 
people that could have been eligible for disability benefits, 
and some portion that weren't eligible for disability benefits 
and didn't know, but there were 50,000 cases laying there that 
were not being process. 

That was not an acceptable situation. It required 
that we get much more aggressive with the federal government and 
the way they budget that program. It's 100 percent federally 
funded program, that we basically contract with the federal 
government to perform. 

When we're not doing it well, though, the State of 
California takes the heat, if you want to call it that; the 
federal government doesn't. 

We did get much more aggressive in the budgeting 
process with them, so that we could get resources, including 
overtime dollars. I am happy to say that that backlog, as of 
last week, because, very frankly, we were trying to get a 



81 



picture of someone pulling the last case off the shelf, but as 
of last week, there were ICO cases left in that backlog of what 
we called shelved cases. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there a new backlog? 

MR. MILLER: No, there is not. 

That's taken of the last 11 months. I didn't mean to 
infer that that happened overnight . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I understand. 

This is in a policy area in which you've chosen to 
spend most of your career years. What do you like about it? 

MR. MILLER: What I like about it is the human 
services side of the program. I think that -- and I'll pick 
children, because I normally pick the elderly. As I get grayer 
and grayer, it's of more and more interest. 

But I think I have an absolute belief that if you've 
going to impact our society, that you're going to have to get to 
kids early in life. And that means to me that you need to not 
spend as many dollars on out of home care, but find ways that 
you can in fact divert resources to both the child, and giving 
the parent, who in our society now oftentimes does not have the 
skills to be a parent, but to divert some resources to both that 
child and to the parent to see if you can build a family 
structure . 

You can call it family preservation; you can call it 
wrap around. You can call it a number of things, but I think 
that if we could somehow get or have an impact on the family 
structure through either providing to the natural parents some 
resources to make them a capable parent, or, if we have to use 



82 

the foster care system , to make sure that the foster parent in 
fact has the skills to provide a home life and family 
environment so that the child feels that they have some worth. 
Then I think that we can, in the long term, impact society. 

The ability to work in that environment and the 
ability to contribute to it, particularly in this job, is both 
challenging to me, and it's something that I absolutely want to 
do. So therefore, that's why I'm interested. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: For someone who has 
responsibilities that are in many ways, I guess, technocratic, 
it's nice to pierce that and find the human being that's trying 
to solve other human beings ' problems . 

MR. MILLER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am. 

MS. RENOVILLA: My name is Nimia Renovilla. I'm a 
registered nurse, and I worked for 17 years in the intensive 
care nursery at Children's Hospital in Oakland. 

And I strongly support Mr. Miller's confirmation. 
But since you — up until now, I have been trying to stay in the 
background, becausG I didn't — I didn't come here really 
prepared. But since you mentioned something about the children, 
that's something very close to my heart. 

I have been a care provider for children who were 
severely handicapped, and I started as a small family home and I 
graduated to a group home. 

But later on, I realized that I was really barking up 
the wrong tree, so to speak, because initially, from the very 



83 

beginning, when I wanted to start a home, I was really eyeing on 
what we call the ICS-DDN home, but at that time, the license was 
frozen because they said — here, in Sacramento, because they 
said they were legislating it. And I was advised from somebody 
in the Regional Center to apply for any license so that I could 
just get into the system, and then -- so that I will get to know 
how to work with the network, and so on. 

But I think it was a wrong. Now I realize, seven 
years later, it was a wrong move because when I got my license 
as small family home, I started -- it slowly creeped, slowly but 
surely, through the system that here is an R.N. who specializes 
with very, very severely handicapped children. And I got 
nothing but really, really handicapped children. 

My home, so to speak, was not really prepared, let 
alone money-wise. 

And another thing, and so I had to cope with all 
that, with all the regulations that went with it. And in 
trying to maintain the home, I kept trying to find ways and 
means how I could get more money so that I can employ the right 
kinds of people, but it really didn't work, you know. 

But I just want to say to Mr. Miller that since 
you're saying something about children, because I also do 
believe that the first and foremost is for parents — for 
children and parents to be together. And my purpose at that 
time was to have some kind of a bridge, to bridge the gap 
between the hospital and the home, because these children that I 
took care of were children who could not be taken care of by 
their parents. They were very, very involved. But I thought 



84 

that if, by having a home like that, and the parents would be 
slowly introduced into their care, I could have done something 
for the community. 

And I just think — I just hope that maybe in the 
future, other home providers who would like to provide care for 
children would have more support. And if your office deemed it 
necessary to inform the care provider with the help of the 
Regional Center, that maybe it is not the kind of license. 
Maybe that the home provider should really apply for a different 
kind of license, if that is what they want they want to do. 

But my trying to hold onto the home under, first, as 
a small family home, then as a group home, was detrimental to me 
and to the business. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your comments. 

Any questions from Members? Are we ready to close on 
this item? 

Do we have a motion? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Craven 
to recommend confirmation to the Senate. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 



85 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Members of the Committee, I think 
we have about 45 minutes' work. If I push us, I think we might 
make it. If there are time problems, if people will let me 
know, we can maybe think of something else to do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman, I have a bit of a time 
problem. I have to go back to the district. 

The other is, I've had just this afternoon some 
material relating to not the next one, but the one after, 
Ms. Schafer. In order to be able to study that material and 
perhaps get more information, I as going to request that we go 
over a couple of weeks, if possible. I wanted to do it earlier 
so that she wouldn't be waiting around all afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's our deadline here? Do we 
have a while? 

MS. MICHEL: We would have to do it during August. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It'll be in August, if that's okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, it's your right to request 
at least a week, and there's no reason, probably, that we can't 
take two. 

MS. MICHEL: I'd say two, because we have five people 
already scheduled next week. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, next week seemed to be a little 
crowded, as I understand. So, I would have asked for one week, 
but in view of that, I will ask for two. 



86 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll put the matter over. 

If there are people here for Jacqueline Schafer's 
confirmation discussion, I believe that will be two weeks from 
today. I apologize for any inconvenience to people. 

Mr. Prunty is the next person up. 

Hi, sir. 

MR. PRUNTY: How do you do? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've kind of heard what we ask 
about, but maybe you'll begin, tell us about you, and why you 
like this position, why you think you should be confirmed. 

MR. PRUNTY: Well, Senator, thank you for the time. 

I've been an employee of this Department of 
Corrections for 2 3 years. In that period of time, I've had a 
succession of assignments, I think, that have prepared me for 
this one. 

I began my career at Folsom in 1971 as a correctional 
officer. In the succeeding years, I promoted through the 
uniformed ranks. I had the opportunity to serve as the Chief of 
Training Services for this Department for a period of time. I 
was Chief Deputy Warden at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional 
Facility for three years, and I was also appointed as the Warden 
at Sierra Conservation Center in 1992. 

In 1993, after having been confirmed by the Senate, I 
made a decision to move to Calipatria State Prison, where I am 
currently assigned. I'd like to think that the institution 
operates a little bit better since I've been there, and I'd like 
the opportunity to continue with that . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, Senator Ayala. 



87 

SENATOR AYALA: Your first employment with the state 
was in Tracy, and you started as a sergeant? 

MR. PRUNTY: No, sir. 

My first department was as a correctional officer a 
Folsom. 

SENATOR AYALA: At Folsom, I see. I have '74-81, you 
were sergeant with the Department of Corrections, Tracy. 

MR. PRUNTY: I was a sergeant from 1974 til 1981, and 
I was a lieutenant from 1981 to 1985, yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm reviewing letters. There's a 
long list of letters of support that we've received from sort of 
all walks: business, labor, community leaders, and so on. 

Let me ask if there is anyone present who would wish 
to perhaps make any brief comment on either support or 
opposition? 

MR. MOSQUEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee. 

I'm here to support Mr. Bud Prunty. I've known him 
about a good part of 15-20 years, and I did work with him when 
he worked at — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell us your name. 

MR. MOSQUEDA: George Mosqueda. I'm a Program 
Administrator for the Department of Corrections. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where? 

MR. MOSQUEDA: Here in Sacramento. 

And I've worked with Mr. Prunty on and off for the 
good part of 20 years. 

When we first met, he was a correctional sergeant. 



88 

And Mr. Prunty ' s the kind of person that leaves a long-lasting 
impression. In my mind, it was a positive one. 

I'm here to tell this Committee today a few things 
that have impressed me about Mr. Prunty, and I think that it's 
something that this Committee should be well aware of. 

As I said previously, I've known him for a good part 
of 2 years. I've known Mr. Prunty ' s management style to be 
firm but fair. And I underscored the word "fair" on my notes, 
because that ' s the kind of person he is . And you have to work 
with somebody, next to him, and dealing with adverse conditions 
with inmates, and sometimes staff, to understand what I mean by 
fair when it comes to Bud Prunty, because he is the person that 
will insist on fairness. 

Another thing that stands out is that he wouldn't ask 
any employee to do something that he was not willing to do 
himself. Even as the Warden, he would still do things to show 
his subordinates and fellow workers that he is capable of doing 
any job that is asked of him. 

I've known Bud Prunty since he was a correctional 
sergeant, correctional lieutenant, correctional captain, and 
associate warden here in Sacramento in charge of training. 

I've noticed his leadership skills to be outstanding, 
integrity, honesty, dedication to the job, and loyalty to the 
Department of Corrections and the State of California. 

To me, I have never seen anyone with those 
characteristics that stand out and do it day in and day out. 
When you work with the Department of Corrections, it's got some 
38,000 employees. It's hard to go along in that Department 



89 

without making a few bumps in the road, but Bud Prunty, to me, 
has done the best that any administrator can do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Others? 

MR. NALEWAJA: I'm Vince Nalewaja. I am father of a 
correctional officer at the Calipatria Prison. He's been there 
13 months, and he could not get off his duty to be up here, so 
he asked me if I would appear. 

So, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'll 
read his letter. 

I, Michael Nalewaja, my son, is a member of the 
CCPOA, and I am in favor of the confirmation of K.W. Prunty as 
Warden of Calipatria State Prison. 

Also, I have worked with Mr. Prunty for 13 months, 
and have met with him face to face via his monthly Warden 
meetings every month. 

I have asked Warden Prunty for his help on at least 
four major problems at our prison. Warden Prunty was fair, 
logical, and very fast acting in correcting these problems. 

The problems ranged from natural swap form changes, 
to holiday time off, holiday policy changes, to an unfair 
treatment of a supervisor. In each case, Warden Prunty 
listened, took notes, asked questions, and corrected the 
problems within a week. 

I have witnessed other correctional officers who are 
in the CCPOA. They get their problems correctly by simply 
explaining their problems to the Warden. These problems are 
things like personnel department was not putting a spouse on 



90 

insurance coverage or transfer problems. Warden Prunty has 
always been so eager to help and very precise in his follow up. 

Also at these monthly updates, Warden Prunty would 
take the time to relate his first-hand experience as a 
correctional officer. Warden Prunty started from the bottom. 
He was an entry level correctional officer and can relate first- 
hand to our problems . 

This insight, his precision, his willingness to work 
hard, his willingness to meet face to face with entry level 
staff, his logic, his high integrity, and his fairness make K.W. 
Prunty an outstanding Warden. 

Signed by my son, Mike. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, thank you, sir. 

MR. LOZANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee. 

My name is Hector Lozano. That's L-o-z-a-n-o, for 
the record. I'm a Correctional Counselor II at the Sierra 
Conservation Center, which is the previous institution that 
Warden Prunty was assigned to. 

I'm here today representing the Chicano Correctional 
Workers Association, Jamestown Chapter. 

In case it hasn't been mentioned, the Association is 
concerned with the hiring, retention and promotion of minorities 
and women. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And he was a captain there. 

MR. LOZANO: He was a captain there; that's correct. 

My particular association with Mr. Prunty started -- 
well, it started with Mr. Mosqueda ' s . I started as an officer. 



91 

Mr. Mosqueda was a sergeant, and Mr. Prunty was a lieutenant. 
Then, of course, he went to Jamestown as a captain, and then 
returned as a warden. 

I'd like just to make my comments brief and echo, if 
I can, without actually echoing, what the other two speakers 
have mentioned. 

Nevertheless, I hope that my brief comments are still 
regarded as significant; significant because this represents 
CCWA ' s continued support of the Department's finest. And I can 
say that Mr. Prunty is definitely among the Department's finest. 

I believe that it also represents, that this process 
represents, the Legislature's commitment, the Director's 
commitment, and Mr. Prunty ' s commitment to ensure that the 
California prisons are staffed with a good, balanced, 
well-qualified work force that is representative of the entire 
California labor force. 

If I may, suffice it to say that in the area of 
affirmative action, promotions, and hiring and so forth, 
Mr. Prunty receives an "A" grade, so to speak, in our opinion. 

My experience with him, observing him in the 
different opportunities I've had to observe him and work with 
him, is that he is a very fair individual, and that is a very 
positive attribute in this business, because every time you turn 
around, someone is complaining about someone being unfair. And 
Mr. Prunty, on the other hand, is very fair. He demonstrated 
this ability as a lieutenant that I was able to observe 
first-hand, as a captain that I was able to observe first-hand, 
and then, of course, as a warden. I doubt that he's changed 



92 

much in the last 16 months. 

That's why our Jamestown Chapter is still in 
unalterable support of his confirmation, and we'd just like to 
urge this Committee that it would nominate Mr. Prunty to the 
full Senate for full confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MR . WOODS : Senator Lockyer and Members , I'm Marion 
Woods again with the NAACP . 

The NAACP ' s concern about the prisons and 
administration in California is borne out of the fact that a 
large number of African-Americans are housed therein. And we 
are interested that the administration, and the wardens, and the 
people who run the prisons do so with the efficiency, 
effectiveness, and equitably. 

Kingston Prunty, we have found, meets all of those 
tests . We commend — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How did you measure that? What 
did you do to find that out? 

MR. WOODS: I went down and spent a day with him, and 
a day in the prison. I talked to convicts; I talked to guards, 
correctional officers. I've been to 16 prisons throughout the 
State of California, and he ranks among the best administrators 
that I've been able to see. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there any of them, do you 
think, that shouldn't be there? 

MR. WOODS: I think so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell me privately sometime. 



93 



MR. WOODS: I will. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Unless you want to do it for the 



record. 



MR. WOODS: No, I would not. 

I can commend him without reservations . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, sir. 

MR. WARE: Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm Jim Ware, 
Association of Black Correctional Workers. 

We strongly support Mr. Prunty, and we find no fault 
in him. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Please. 

MR. SEARCY: Frank Searcy, President of the Chicano 
Correctional Workers Association. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to be here this 
afternoon. 

This Association strongly endorses Mr. Prunty for 
Warden at Calipatria State Prison. 

I've known Mr. Prunty also for several years, and he, 
throughout the association, has never, I don't think, ever heard 
any negative things about Mr. Prunty. Anything that they have 
heard has been in a positive manner. 

Like has been voiced already, he has dealt with 
problems on varying issues in the institutions, and he always 
deals with it fairly, consistent. 

Also, Mr. Denny Paramor, the Calipatria State Prison 
Chapter of the Chicano Correctional Workers Association, was 
here. Unfortunately, he had to leave to catch a flight back to 



94 

Calipatria, and he asked me to share that their chapter also 
strongly endorses Mr. Prunty. 

Mr. Paramor is also a city council member of 
Calipatria City Council, and he also wanted to share that the 
City Council of Calipatria also supports Mr. Prunty for Warden. 

So with that, thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. FALLON: Yes, my name is Duncan Fallon. 

Mr. Prunty is my direct supervisor and has been since 
1992 at Sierra Conservation Center, and my direct supervisor now 
at Calipatria State Prison. 

I work with him daily, one to one. He is very 
committed to his job and to the people of California. 

I'd like to ask you to honor his commitment and 
confirm him as Warden of Calipatria State Prison. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MR. BAILEY: My name is Richard Bailey. I'm 
President of the local chapter of CSEA at Calipatria State 
Prison. 

I have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Prunty every 
month, that he's impressed several things that he wants: 
credibility, accountability, and respectability, and you've got 
them. He gives everybody that -- we've come to him with 
problems, he listens to their problems. 

He believes firmly in participatory management. He 
holds his managers accountable, that we can have meetings that 
he's instituted with lesser people, you know, lesser managers, I 
guess, below him in the chain of command, where we can go in and 



95 

we can talk, and we can solve problems. And I -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean you can actually see the 
difference in participatory management? You can see the 
differences? 

MR. BAILEY: Yes, sir, I can. 

Many times in a prison setting, being a paramilitary, 
that it's very easy to abuse power. Mr. Prunty stresses 
communication, and we've had very few problems at CSEA. And 
those that we have had, we've been able to work out. And that's 
due — you know, we're wholeheartedly behind confirming Mr. 
Prunty as Warden. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

I may, if I just could insert this brief comment. 

Since it is a quasi-military or paramilitary 
structure, it seems to me that there are some potential problems 
that run with that culture, and I hear comments from time to 
time that the labor-management relationships might be skewed 
toward sort of command structure rather than a flatter, more 
involved approach to things, with employees being respected and 
able to participate. 

It doesn't sound like Mr. Prunty ' s the person, but 
when I get a clear view of one of the warden appointees of the 
old school, they should expect not to be confirmed. 

Now, that's not the case before us, but it is a 
problem with this particular culture that I think we need to 
keep an eye on. 

Do we have some more comments? Yes, quickly, if you 
will. 



96 

MS. BIAGINI: My name is Patricia Biagini, and I'm 
here as Co-Chairperson for the Calipatria State Prison Women's 
Liaison Council. 

As you're aware, the Women's Liaison Council is a 
state-mandated program, initiated in 1979 to lend an open forum 
of communication between staff and the Director of Corrections. 
This program includes women in trades share the path training 
and development programs, mentoring upward mobility and 
statewide training. 

Mr. Prunty was the recent recipient of the 
Departmental Women's Liaison Council Correctional 
Administrator's Recognition Award. This was presented to him 
because of his demonstrated and continuing support of the 
women ' s programs . 

When concerns and issues are presented to the 
Council, such as safety issues, he assists us in problem solving 
these issues. For example, as officers expressed concern 
regarding questionable, suggestive and violent movies being 
shown to the inmate population, this issue was resolved when 
Mr. Prunty came to one of our meetings and assisted in 
suggesting that we now participate in the movie review system. 
This is also being suggested on a statewide basis. 

Additionally, when concerns are presented to 
Mr. Prunty, such as custody versus noncustody concepts within 
the institution, he has offered direction and professionalism 
through his open forum monthly meetings for all staff to attend. 
He deals with employees' concerns on an individual basis, in a 
firm yet fair manner, and has established training programs to 



97 

emphasize team work in creating a safer and more aware 
environment within the institutional setting for all staff. 

I'm sure you're aware Mr. Prunty was selected from 
numerous candidates and is recognized as the Departmental 
trainer for women, for wardens, and chief deputy wardens in 
ethics and ethical behavior for the Department of Corrections 
today. He affords his training, background, and expertise to 
the staff at Calipatria by his personal demeanor and dedicated 
involvement to the training at the local level . 

On a personal note, as a state employee for the past 
15 years, and my current assignment is a Personal Specialist, 
Mr. Prunty was assigned to an area that was in great need of 
professional direction, leadership, and commitment with an 
understanding and knowledgeable attitude. He has given that to 
Calipatria State Prison and its staff, which is evidenced by the 
way staff now responds in these open meetings. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

MR. NOVEY: Senator Lockyer, Chairman of the 
Committee, Committee Members, Don Novey representing CCPOA, the 
California Correctional Peace Officers Association. We'll make 
this short. It's been a long day for all of you. 

We ' re not here to oppose Bud Prunty as an 
organization. And I hear all these people up here testifying, 
"I worked with Bud Prunty here," or, "I worked with him later on 
in our career. " 

Bud Prunty and I started out together in the Hole at 
Folsom Prison, 23 years ago. We're the ones that had Charlie 
Manson throw slop on us, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black 



98 

Guerrilla Family, the Mexican Mafia. So, Bud and I go back 
pretty far in history. Unfortunately, he went to management and 
I went to labor, and I think we've both been fairly successful 
in our careers . 

What we're here to do today as an organization is 
maybe help Mr. Prunty. And as an organization, I'd like to let 
you know that we vehemently opposed the opening of Calipatria 
State Prison. 

When I walked on the yard of that prison, it was 103 
degrees. Humidity was 95 percent, and my face and whole body 
was covered with white flies, just walking across the yard. And 
the officers have to work in that environment, let alone the 
inmates living in it. 

The prison was designed for medium custody inmates. 
Mr. Prunty has inherited a prison that had over 300 and some 
assaults in its first year. I dare say that Ruben Ayala 
wouldn't tolerate that in Chino Valley. 

It was somewhat of an embarrassment. The former 
warden was removed, and he's now elsewhere in the State of 
California. And I don't know if that would have brought other 
things to fruition. 

I think Bud Prunty needs a psychological screening 
for volunteering to go to that facility. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. NOVEY: Bud had a beautiful institution at 
Sierra, well respected by the Association's membership, and we 
have some difficult problems now, and I think they're basically 
labor. And hopefully, we can work them out and make it a better 



99 

facility. 

It's tough for the officers. At best, we probably 
average an assault there every third day now, and it's been cut 
down since the movement of Mr. Prunty in there as Warden, and 
our organization would be the first to acknowledge that. 

What we'd like to do is bring to your attention today 
some of the problems we are having, and we'd like to bring those 
to a resolve. With that in mind, I'd now like to introduce Mr. 
Dave Moschetti, our chief job steward there and President. 

MR. MOSCHETTI: I'm the Chapter President at 
Calipatria State Prison. I'd like to thank you for permitting 
time to speak. 

Although we're taking a neutral position of opposing 
Mr. Prunty, there is some areas of concern that we have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are they? 

MR. MOSCHETTI: I'm going to be brief. I'm ready to 
go home. 

We generated a package. I believe you have copies of 
them. There's three things that stuck out in my mind. 

I originally came from Folsom. And when I worked at 
Folsom, it was going through some bad times. A lot of employee 
abuses and mistreatment. That's now been resolved. 

But I see the pattern happening at my institution. I 
don't blame Bud Prunty for that. But there is some middle 
management supervisors that are out there that I think are very 
zealous in that. 

One example was where we had one employee, a pregnant 
female, who was taken into an office by four supervisors. When 



100 

she walked in there, I guess it was for admonishment, she 
attempted to sit down. The four supervisors pointed to a chair 
in the middle of the room. They drawed the blinds, and told 
her, "This is the hot seat. You sit there." They were 
continually belittling her. She came out crying and came to me 
for help. 

Another example, in housing units there's a control 
booth where the weapons are stored, and that's where the 
officers monitor inmate movement. And there's holes in the 
floor where an officer uses to point the weapon for inmate 
movement. And while we made complaints about that, filed 
numerous grievances, we had a female officer fall through that. 
She's crippled for life. She has back problems. She was 
medically discharged from her reserve duty in the military. 

Another example is, we had two officers. They were 
ordered to work in infectious wastes — human feces, urine -- by 
a supervisor. They practically begged the supervisor they 
didn't want to work there, please allow us to clean it up first. 
And the supervisor didn't allow it. They became ill. And they 
came out of that position, and they ordered two more officers to 
work in that. 

We see these as problems that need to be addressed. 
That's what we're trying to get done today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Anyone else that would wish to make any comments? 

MR. CORCORAN: Mr. Chairperson, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Lance Corcoran. I'm the Chapter President 
of CCPOA from Susanville, California. 



101 

I will make my comments extremely brief. 

I'm not the statewide president; I'm not the lobbyist 
for the Association. I was part of an outside team of chapter 
presidents that was sent by CCPOA to try to find out if some of 
the allegations that were being made were correct. 

This was unique. It hadn't been done before with 
CCPOA . 

Upon arrival, we had certain findings. We found that 
there was a perception of a hostile work environment. We held a 
meeting for 48 straight hours, right there in Calipatria. And 
that was a burden, I want to tell you. 

But at any rate, what we found over interviews with 
approximately 150 staff members, not just one, was that there's 
a perception of us against them. Our own team is divided in 
Calipatria. 

And if we can resolve any issue, if Mr. Prunty can 
resolve any issue, I think that would be the first on his list. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you reconcile that 
observation with the testimony from the gentleman representing 
the CSEA chapter, that there's this new commitment to 
participatory workplace management? 

MR. CORCORAN: I can only tell you from my experience 
in those interviews. And also, I remember that gentleman coming 
into the ERO ' s office while I was there as part of this team, 
and he was expressing some frustrations. I believe that they'd 
lost his transfer package three times. I found it unique, 
inconsistent. 

At any rate, we saw some breaches of security. We 



102 

saw some problems there. 

We put together a report asking for some action. We 
also wrote letters to the Appointments Director of this 
Committee, asking for information. 

I guess the biggest frustration for those members 
there at that institution and for those job stewards is that 
they weren't being afforded a response to their grievances. 
They weren't being given any information that they requested. 

And thankfully, through the help of this Committee, 
and through the help of Nancy Michel, we got a detailed response 
to almost every one of our issues written by Mr. Prunty. But 
it's unfortunate that we had to come to this level to finally 
get that response. 

In conclusion, I think that a number of the things 
that you've seen today show clearly the need for an outside 
agency to investigate wardens. 

As a member of a union team sent to Calipatria to 
investigate what the union was alleging, I have to tell you, I 
had a certain bias. I was looking for things from a union 
perspective. And how a team of administrators, or people who 
want to be administrators, can go into a situation and 
objectively look at it, that's really something. I don't know 
how they can do that, because I found that I could not. I did 
look at things from a union perspective. I did try to find 
problems as opposed to solving them, initially, because I think 
that that would be a positive step. 

The other thing is that I think very clearly that 
if there are problems existing, the wardens do not like to go 



103 

through confirmation processes. I don't think it would be a bad 
thing to have a review, say, every five years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They move around faster than that. 
They're like term limits, you know. It doesn't matter; it 
happens anyhow . 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. CORCORAN: I think the reason that CCPOA has sort 
of altered its position to one of neutrality is one that perhaps 
the local chapter recognized that the problems at Calipatria 
were not necessarily indicative of Bud Prunty's management 
style, but of the Department of Corrections as a whole. And I 
know that the Department has started to put together plans to 
deal with the way it treats its people. One of them is the TOP 
program: the Treatment of People class. 

I find it ironic that the Department has to have a 
class to teach people how to treat others. I thought that was 
called the Golden Rule. 

At any rate, I want to thank this Committee for your 
valuable time. Thank you for staying so late. And also, I want 
to mention a thank you to Nancy Michel and to Ken Hurdle for 
their help in maybe starting to resolve some of the problems at 
Calipatria and the Department of Corrections. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MS. DEXTER: Good evening. My name's Debra Dexter. 
I am the Assistant Chairperson for the Association of Black 
Correctional Workers, El Centro Chapter. 

I am also an employee at Calipatria State Prison. I 



104 

am here today to express the support of the organization in 
confirming Mr. Prunty as Warden of Calipatria State Prison. 

There's been many issues that I have brought to him 
on behalf of the organization, and he has always had an open 
door policy. He's been willing to listen, and he has made some 
appropriate changes . 

On a more personal note, since I activated Calipatria 
in 1991, I can agree from day one, there were a lot of problems 
at that institution. I was there in the capacity of a 
correctional sergeant. 

What you all need to know is that probably 95 percent 
of the staff there were all brand-new supervisors, and brand-new 
officers, and brand-new administrators. A lot of the problems 
that Calipatria had at the time, Mr. Prunty has corrected them. 

Now, the institution is not running perfectly; 
however, it is running 100 percent better than what it was. 
There were numerous people at one time that wanted to transfer 
out of the institution. Right now, you'll find that the 
transfer packets have slowed down. People are starting -- 
finally starting to feel a sense of security. And when they do 
have a problem, they can take it to someone, and Mr. Prunty is 
willing to listen, and he does make appropriate changes. 

The CCPOA President spoke on a couple of issues. A 
couple of them I am aware of. The officer that did fall through 
the porthole is not crippled. She's part of our organization, 
and she's now back working. She's been back to work for at 
least six months. 

She did have difficulties for a while, but there were 



105 

other issues involved that had to do with partly some of her 
negligence also. 

So, there are problems, and you know, right now I'm 
in a different position because I'm now out of uniform and I am 
a part of CCPOA. 

And I just wanted to let you all know that there has 
been changes there, and Mr. trunty is one that you can take your 
problems to, and he will listen. 

Thank you . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Yes, sir. 

MR. ROTHCHLD: My name is Don Rothchld. I'm a 
correctional sergeant at Calipatria. 

Mr. Frunty is a hands-on administrator. Since his 
arrival at Calipatria State Prison, numerous systems have been 
implemented which have directly improved the operation of the 
institution. Mr. Prunty initiated a new inmate custody 
criteria which immediately created a safer working environment 
for staff, provided additional protection for the public, and to 
the inmates housed at Calipatria. The improved security 
measures and procedures have resulted in increased staff morale. 

I have been at Calipatria since December of '91, when 
we activated. I've seen a remarkable change, both in the way 
the institution is ran, the security, and the morale of the 
staff at the institution. 

For these and many other reasons, I support the 
confirmation of Mr. Prunty. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 



106 

MR. CRAMER: Mr. Chairman, Members of — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't think he's at any great 
risk here. Quantity isn't necessary. 

MR. CRAMER: I'll make it quick. 

My name is Carl Cramer. I'm the Food Manager at 
Calipatria State Prison. 

I believe that Warden Prunty is the warden that we 
need there. The communication is what it's all about; he 
provides it. If my subordinates wish to talk to the warden, 
they can, and I think that's very important, that there is 
someplace to go. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MS. ROSARIO: Hi. I'm Gloria Rosario, correctional 
officer at California State Prison, Sacramento. 

I've known Bud for between 15-20 years. And I became 
a correctional officer in 1989, when Mr. Prunty was the Chief 
Training Officer. At that time, he was concerned about the 
treatment of cadets, and he asked me when I entered the Academy 
to keep an eye out, because he'd heard that the cadets had to do 
30 pushups. 

And he is -- he grew up in the old school, but he is 
from the new generation, and he wanted to train us to be 
respectable, so we'd respect each other. 

And then I became involved with the Women's Liaison 
Council when he was in R. J. Donovan. He asked me to send him 
the newsletters so that he could format their newsletter. So, 
he's been very supportive of the women staff. 



C107 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did we catch everybody? 

Questions from Members? 

Mr. Prunty, there is not a right or a wrong answer to 
this, but I'd just be interested in your reflections on two 
things: determinate versus indeterminate. Any sense of which 
is a better policy 

MR. PRUNTY: I think indeterminate. If I had a 
choice, indeterminate. 

I think that the determinate sentence in itself, in 
its intention to be fair and equitable in the sentencing, 
criminals are individuals. They are better prepared to go back 
at different times. 

I think that their review annually, or at regular 
intervals, by a releasing authority was a good thing and is a 
good thing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about weights? This seems to 
be a controversy in some circles. Do you think it's useful, or 
should be gotten rid of? 

MR. PRUNTY: Let me answer that in this way. 

The purpose of the Department of Corrections is to 
protect the public and it's to punish offenders. And the 
punishment is the loss of their freedom, their incarceration. 
We do both very well, I think. 

We need to keep in mind, however, if we don't do 
something positive with the inmates while they're there, they 
are going to go home much worse than when they came, and 
especially if they're kept there longer and longer periods of 



108 

time, and we're keeping them longer and longer periods of time, 
and legitimately so. 

However, the majority of them are going to go home, 
so we need to do something very positive. And I believe firmly 
in positive programming for inmates. That's academic and 
vocational training, work assignments, and I think also that 
recreation is an integral part of that. 

Weight lifting is a positive thing for inmates. It 
needs to be controlled, as any privilege is. If it's abused, we 
need to be able to curtail that. 

Many staff, I think, and many citizens are concerned 
with the inmates getting very bulky and becoming more 
terrorizing than they were before. But I can tell, my 
experience is, the difficulties I've had with inmates are not 
with the weight lifters. A 98-pound weakling with a .45 magnum 
probably is more intimidating than any weight lifter on the 
streets . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there some kind of lingering 
labor problems in your institution? Do you want to talk about 
that? 

MR. PRUNTY: Well, there are -- there are some 
disagreements, I think, between the bargaining unit and myself. 
You've heard some of them. 

I've not changed the way I've done business in all 
the time I've been with this Department. I have never seen — I 
never encouraged, nor never have I tolerated an "us and them" 
attitude. I don't believe in it. We're all members of the same 
organization; we all need to be working in the same direction, 



109 

and we all need to be cooperating. 

When I got there, there were some very strained 
relationships. I dealt with a lot of new staff, a lot of new 
supervisors, a lot of difficult problems with the institution. 
Many people felt very strongly about the position they were 
taking on certain issues, and some had offended each other, and 
communication was very poor. 

I've worked very hard to try to correct that. I 
think we've made a lot of progress. I think there's a lot more 
to be done . 

Supervisors and employees need to recognize they're 
on the same side, even though they have somewhat different 
responsibilities. But the treatment of people -- you heard 
Mr. Corcoran, I believe, speak about the treatment of people. I 
think that's part of the job we do all day long with each other, 
and it goes both ways, from line staff to supervisors, and from 
supervisors to line staff. Everybody has to be involved and 
treat each other well, even when we have to do some difficult 
jobs . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 



Craven. 



Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 



110 



SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Craven. 

SENATOR CRAVEN: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Craven Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck, sir. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
6:26 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 



Ill 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

. j£ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this / ' day of August, 1994. 




iVELYN 
Shorthand Reporl 



260-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $6.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 260-R when ordering.